I 



THE BAPTISMAL QUESTION. 



DISCUSSION 



BAPTISMAL QUESTION, 



CONSISTING OF 

I. HINTS TO AN INQUIRER ON THE SUBJECT OF BAP- 
TISM. By Rev. Messrs. Cooke and Towne. 

II. REVIEW OF THE " HINTS." By Rev. William Hague. 

HI. REJOINDER TO THE REVIEW. By Rev. Messrs. Cookk 
and Towne. 

IV. EXAMINATION OF THE REJOINDER. By Rev. William 
Hague. 



BOSTON : 

GOULD, KENDALL &, LINCOLJM; 

5 9 Wa shington Street. 

1842.' 






mm 

Be i rem Smith 

Marwn 15, 1934 



PUBLISHERS^ NOTICE. 



Towards the close of last May, Rev. Messrs. Cooke and Towne 
published a pamphlet, entitled, " Hints to an Inquirer, on the subject 
of Baptism," in which the views and practices of the Baptists were 
so treated, that some reply, on the part of the denomination, seemed 
to be called for. On application to Mr. Hague, he immediately pre- 
pared a Review of that work, and this called forth a Rejoinder, from 
Messrs Cooke and Towne, which was published in one small vol- 
ume ; — first their " Hints," in a fair, legible type ; next Mr. Hague's 
Review, in type so fine and dim, that very few persons could read it 
without endangering their eyes ; and then their Rejoinder to the Re- 
view, in type laige and clear. Thus, while in their advertisement 
there was an appearance of candor, in publishing both sides, there 
was, in reality, a want of candor and fairness, in so publishing the 
Review, that very few could do it justice in the perusal. 

In the " JVote " to Cooke and Towne's Rejoinder, it is said, "We 
learn that complaint has been made of our printing the whole of Mr. 
Hague's pamphlet with ours. His publishers, in putting it forth 
without securing the copyright, as they might have done for a trifle, 
virtually gave it to the public, and have no legal or moral right, and 
no right on the score of courtesy, to complain of any one for publish- 
ing it." 

Allowing that while omitting to take out a copyright (as is usual, 
i^ publishing a small pamphlet), we forfeited our claim of "legal 
right," we are unable to see that it can affect our " moral right," or 
annul all claim of "courtesy !" They were distinctly informed, that 
we objected to their publishing our work in the way they did. There 
is a "law of trade," in reference to republishing foreign works, not 
entitled to a copyright in this countfy, that he who first obtains a 
complete copy, secures to himself the right of publishing ; and in so 



iv publishers' notice. 

high regard is this law of honor and courtesy held, that in some few 
instances, where it has been violated, the course has been condemned, 
on the part of the " trade," by a refusal to purchase or sell copies of 
the edition thus published. How, then, must our surprise have been 
excited, to find this law of honor, and regard to moral right, so strictly 
adhered to by men of the world, unheeded by those who profess to be 
governed by the pure principles of the gospel ! 

It has been our wish, in issuing the *' Examination of the Rejoin- 
der," by Mr. Hague, to publish both sides fully — to put forth the 
whole discussion in one volume. But the copyright of the " Hints " 
and *' Rejoinder " having been secured to the publishers, we have 
not been permitted to put these works in our own type, so as to have 
the numbers of the pages to succeed each other in regular order, as 
would have been desirable. We have, however, purchased the right 
of printing from the stereotype plates of Messrs. Cooke and Towne'a 
productions, and bound them up with our own publications; although, 
to accomplish our object, we have been forced to adopt type unlike 
our own, and to leave the paging without arrangement, which would 
give the whole an appearance of unity. 

Nevertheless, the public will see that we have done all that we 
could, under the circumstances of the case, to present to view the 
whole discussion in a form which shall be easy of perusal, and con- 
venient for the sake of reference. As we have not cared to secure 
for ourselves pecuniary profit, we may ask with the more confidence, 
that the whole may be read with a candid mind, *' an applying con- 
science, and a retentive memory." 

For the benefit of such as are already in possession of the previous 
works, and may feel indisposed to purchase the same again, Mr. 
Hague's Examination of Messrs. Cooke and Towne's Rejoinder has 
been republished in a separate form, and may be had at a reduced 
price. 

THE PUBLISHERS. 

Boston, Dece.mber, 1842. 



HINTS 



AN INQUIRER 



ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 



FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE NEW ENaLAND PURITAN. 



PARSONS COOKE AND JOSEPH H. TOWNE. 



BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED BY WASHINGTON CLAPP, 

AT THE OFFICE OF THE NEW ENGLAND PURITAN. 

1842. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, 

By Washington Clapp, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 



<3m 

^i:k ram Smith 
March 15, 1S34 



STEREOTVPED BY 

GEORGE A. CURTIS, 

N. ENGLAND TYPE AND STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY, BOSTON, 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 



INTRODUCTION. 



Those who practise immersion assume the position, that 
they may lawfully debar from the Lord's table all who ad- 
minister baptism in other ways. This gives the question 
before us an importance which otherwise would not belong to 
it. If the exclusive principle advocated by this body of Chris- 
tians is defensible on scriptural grounds, the greater part of 
Christ's professed disciples are intruders at his table. But 
if, on the other hand, Immersers are wrong, they are guilty 
of exercising an usurped authority in the house of God, and 
of withholding the children's bread. 

The honest inquirer on this subject, therefore, in settling 
the question, whether he shall be immersed and unite with 
Immersers, must, at the same time, settle the question as to 
close communion. He cannot join them in church fellowship, 
without giving his sanction to their exclusive principle. This 
fact he should take along with him, through the whole argu- 
ment, and put every suggestion in favor of immersion to the 
test of the inquiry — Is this sure and satisfactory ground on 
ivhich to base dose communion ? 

As to the use of names, we must be excused from using the 
term " Baptists," for those who practise immersion. The 
application to them of this name, is equivalent to a concession, 
that we do not baptize. And there is a kind of charm attached 



4 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

to the name, carrying with it an impression, injurious to the 
force of opposite arguments. The influence of a name on this 
subject, has an illustration of this kind. A Campbellite, hold- 
ing forth to an uncultivated audience at the west, in favor of 
immersion, broke forth in the following eloquent appeal: — 
" Was it John the Methodist? No. Was it John the Epis- 
copalian? No. Was it John the Presbyterian? No. It 
was John the Baptist.'''' And this was doubtless the end of all 
strife, for those who could be convinced by the sound of a 
name. But the sound of a name has its influence more or less 
with all ; and it is not fit that in this respect, an advantage 
should be conceded to either side. For any sect to claim the 
exclusive use of the term Baptists, is no more equitable than 
that they should claim an exclusive use of the name believers ; 
in a way to imply that no others believe in Christ but them- 
selves. But if they choose thus to beg the question, it is not 
wise in us to concede it. We take the liberty, therefore, so 
far as we have occasion to apply a name in these remarks, to 
use the term Immersers instead of Baptists — a term which 
need not be offensive to them, as it has no invidious intent with 
us. We are aware that immersion, unscriptural as we con- 
ceive it to be, is associated with the purest feelings of many 
devout disciples of our blessed Lord ; and far be it from us to 
trifle with such feelings. But the cause of truth requires it 
of all Pedobaptists, that they take special pains to break the 
force of a habit ; and discard, entirely, the use of a term so 
injurious to themselves. And, furthermore, it is the duty of 
Immersers, themselves, to discard its exclusive use, and that 
for the sake of consistency. In their new translation of the 
Bible, they have substituted immerse, for baptize, under the 
idea that baptize is not a fit and proper word to express the 
thing, and thus have virtually expunged baptism from the Bi- 
ble. And now it is passing strange, if they, who are taking 
measures to deprive the Christian world of the very name of 
baptism, should assume the monopoly of that name, and style 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 6 

themselves the only Baptists. Surely, after having blotted 
the word from the Bible, they will not deem it fit to retain it 
as the name of their sect. Though the sect in its infancy, 
•was baptized by this name, yet now, having attained to ma- 
turer knowledge, and discovered that baptize does not express 
the true idea, they may be expected to secure a change of 
name, and conform to their riper knowledge. 

We wish the inquirer to mark in the outset that the nice 
and punctilious regard to the forms of outward rites, so much 
insisted upon in the Mosaic ritual, is not required of us. A 
divine simplicity characterizes the New Testament institutions. 
It is contrary to the genius of the gospel to lay great stress on 
outward rites. It rather invites the main solicitudes upon 
ordering the heart and life. The kingdom of God consisteth 
not in meats and drinks, but in righteousness, and peace, and 
joy in the Holy Ghost. Neither circumcision availeth any- 
thing nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 

And much less does the gospel lay a stress on the mode 
of performing an external rite, and require the conscience to 
be burdened with the inquiry, whether it shall be done in this 
way or that. It has instituted two rites, as simple as it was 
possible to make them, and says nothing about a danger to be 
incurred, by failing to perform the simple ceremonies, precise- 
ly after a particular way. 

Let the inquirer take notice, that Jmmersers assume more 
responsibility than we do, and have more to prove. Their prin- 
ciples of close communion lay them under obligations to show 
to an absolute certainty, that inspiration fixes that their way, 
and no other way, of applying water is baptism. On the other 
hand, we need only show that there is no such certainty 
and we gain the question in dispute. For what intelligent 
and candid mind could ever feel justified in basing dose com- 
munion upon an external ceremony of doubtful obligation? 
We expect, however, to show more than this. While we 
hold that the New Testament insists upon no particular way 
1* 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 



of applying the water as essential, we contend that it favors 
sprinkling- or pouring ; and that of all the conceivable forms 
of baptism, immersion is the most unnatural and improbable, 
and the farthest from the true design of the rite. 



CHAPTER I. 

MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 

The argument for immersion is founded upon the assump- 
tion, that the words baptism and immersion convey the same 
idea. But this is a gross mistake. Baptism expresses the 
whole idea of the rite, including the invoking of the Trinity, 
the receiving of the candidate's implied profession of faith, the 
application of the water, and the like. Immersion expresses 
only a fraction of this idea. The Baptizer's Letter furnishes us 
with an apt illustration. " If I fall from a ship's side and am 
thoroughly immersed — is that baptism? No. Or if men 
immerse me by force— is that baptism? No. Or if I am 
immersed with my own consent, but not in the name of the 
Trinity — is that baptism? No. Well, then, neither immer- 
sion, nor the use of water in any way is baptism ; which is 
SOMETHING MORE." This is Sufficient to show that baptism 
and immersion are not synonymous terms. 

But it is said that the Greek words bapto and baptize (both of 
.he same origin, and so nearly identical in meaning as to allow 
of our speaking of them as one word) decide the controversy. 
We should expect confident assertions in regard to these 
words ; for if they fail, a very material part of the Immerser's 
argument vanishes. Now we affirm that these words deter- 
mine nothing in this controversy, unless they have a fixed 
and invariable meaning, allowing water to be applied only in 
one way. If, on investigation, it be found that these words so 
much relied on, have different senses ; if in one connection 
they mean to plunge, and in another to wash, and in another 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 7 

to tinge or color, and in another to sprinkle, the mere general 
command to baptize does not tell us how the water shall be 
used. 

The question, then, before us is — have these words a fixed 
■ and invariable meaning ? Even if we were to allow (as we 
do not) that to immerse is the primary signification of these 
terms, it would not fix us to that way of applying water. 
Words very often lose their primary meaning. Instance the 
English word villain, primarily a servant; the word clerk, 
primarily a clergyman. Examples without number might be 
adduced, wherein the primary meaning is wholly superseded. 
And then many words which retain their primary meaning 
have also secondary meanings. The English noun, general, 
means the whole or totality, and then secondarily, a military 
officer. The word meal is primarily used of the flour of corn, 
and then of a repast. The word dowry, primarily means a 
price paid for a wife ; and secondarily almost the opposite, 
that is, a portion received with a wife ; and so of many others. 

Again : when words go ahroad and come into a foreign lan- 
guage, they often change their meaning. Hence, if it could 
be shown that the Greeks used the word for immersion, and 
nothing else, it would not follow that the Jews, having adopted 
it as a foreign word, retained the same sense ; nor that it bears 
such a meaning in the New Testament, as Greek writers 
give it. These suggestions are sufficient to raise at least the 
suspicion, that it is hazardous to rest close communion upon 
the assumption, that the word baptize necessarily carries the 
force of immersion. 

The inquirer is now prepared to come nearer to the point, 
and see how these words are actually used. We will begin 
with uninspired writers. Callimachus and his commentators 
use bapto, to denote drawing up, &c. " To-day ye bearers 
of water draw up [baptize] none." Hippocrates, speaking of 
a certain liquid, says, " When it drops upon the garments they 
are dyed" [baptized.] Observe, the dropping of the liquid is 



8 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

called baptism, ^schylus says, "This garment, stained 
[baptized] by the sword of ^gisth»^s, is a witness unto me." 
Here the flowing of blood upon a garment is called baptism. 
Homer, in his battle of the frogs and mice, says, " He fell and 
breathed no more, and the lake was tinged [baptized] with the 
purple blood." "Was the lake immersed in the blood of a 
MOUSE? Aristophanes says, that Magnes, an old comic poet 
of Athens, used the Lydian music, and shaved his face, smear- 
ing [baptizing] it with tawny brushes." Here the lathering 
of his face, as when one shaves himself, is called baptizing. 
Aristotle speaks of a substance which being pressed, stains, 
[baptizes] the hand. When a man takes a sponge in his hand, 
and presses it, the water runs upon it ; but the hand is not 
immersed, ^lian speaking of an old coxcomb, says, "He 
endeavored to conceal the hoariness of his hair, by coloring 
[baptizing] it." Another example : "You color [baptize] your 
head, but you can never color [baptize] old age." Aristo- 
phanes speaks of a "speckled [baptized] bird," as if w^e should 
call a Guinea hen a baptized hen. Marcus Antonius says, 
"The soul is tinctured [baptized] by the thought." 

The Sybilline verse, concerning the city of Athens, is as 
follows, " Thou mayest be baptized, O bladder, but it is 

NOT permitted TO THEE TO GO UNDER THE WATER." Here 

we have Athens compared to a leathern bottle, or bladder, 
cast upon the agitated waters, but in spite of the agitation not 
immersed. This floating upon the water is called baptism. 
Aristophanes speaks of himself as having been baptized with 
wine. Here is no immersion ; the wine was poured into him ; 
and not he plunged into the wine. Josephus, speaking of puri- 
fication from defilement by a dead body, says, " Having bap- 
tized some of the ashes, wath spring water they sprinkled, "&c. 
Numbers xix. 17, informs us how this was done. " Thou shalt 
take of the ashes of the burnt heifer, and running water shall 
be put thereto in a vessel, and a clean person shall sprinkle it." 
JSTow observe, the command is not to put the ashes into the 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 9 

water, but the water to the ashes. This mode of applying 
water is called baptism by Josephus. 

Next we will show how the word is used hy Old Testament 
<ind Apocryphal writers . Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 30 — "He that 
is baptized from the touch of a dead body, and again toucheth 
it, what is he profited by his washing ? ' ' Now the process of 
purifying from this defilement was by sprinkling, by washing 
the clothes ; and this is called baptism. In Judith xii. 7 — 
she is said to have gone out in the night, and baptized herself 
in the camp, at [not in] the fountain of water. This of course 
was not immersion. Ezekiel xxiii. 15 — " Exceeding in dyed 
[baptized] attire." Daniel v. 21 — "His body was wet [bap- 
tized] with the dew of heaven." It must have been a heavy 
dew, to have allowed of immersion ! 

Next follow examples /?'om the New Testament. Paul says 
the Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in 
the sea — 1 Cor. x. 2. How baptized ? In Exodus xiv. 22, 
we are informed that they went over on dry ground. But in 
what sense can men be said to be immersed, while walking on 
dry ground ! That they were not immersed is clear. How, 
then, were they baptized? One of the prophets, alluding to 
this, says — "And the clouds poured out water." The drop- 
pings from the cloud as they were passing, was their baptism, 
and the only way in which they were wet at all. In Heb. 
ix. 10, Paul calls the different ceremonial washings done in 
the tabernacle service, baptisms. Among them all there is 
not an instance of immersion by the priests. In all cases 
when the subjects bathed, there was no official administration. 
For these baptisms, see Lev. viii. 6, and Numb. viii. 7, Lev. 
xiv. 7, Numb. xix. 13, 17, 18, &c. 

Mark vii. 3 — " For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except 
they wash [baptize] their hands, they eat not, and when they 
come from the market, except they wash [baptize] they eat 
not." Here merely washing the hands is called baptism, and 
that was usually done by pouring water upon the hands. 



10 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

Mark vii. 4 — "And many other things there be which they 
have received to hold, as the washing [baptism] of cups, pots, 
brazen vessels, and couches." These couches were long seats, 
or beds, on which they reclined ; and it would be extraordi- 
nary if they immersed their beds! Luke xi. 38 — "And 
when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not 
washed [baptized] before dinner." Acts i. 5, &c. — "Baptized 
with the Holy Ghost." One is not immersed in the Holy 
Ghost, but it is poured- out upon him. 

You see, then, in what different senses the words are used, 
both by Greek and Jewish writers, when not applied to a re- 
ligious rite. What is the conclusion ? Necessarily that these 
words have not a fixed and invariable meaning — that they do 
not of themselves determine any one particular way of apply- 
ing a liquid. They are found to be as indeterminate as our 
word wash. When one informs us that he has washed, wo 
suppose that he has made use of water in some way, but can- 
not tell, from the word employed, in what way. Men wash 
themselves in divers ways. From this investigation of the 
words, it begins to look as if the apostle was guilty of no im- 
propriety of language, when he spoke of divers baptisms. 

Let the reader now glance at some suggestions, that will 
enable him to decide correctly as to the force of these words, 
when applied to the Christian ordinance. 

1. Words taken from a common use, and applied in a spe- 
cial manner to express a religious rite, must necessarily have a 
special sense. They cover a new idea, created by the new 
institution, and consequently must have a new shade of mean- 
ing. The idea of Christian Baptism did not exist till our 
Saviour created it by instituting the rite. This institution 
gave necessarily a new meaning to the word. As ^religious 
ceremony, Baptism is neither immersion nor sprinkling. It 
stands now for a religious rite — and that rite is water applied 
religiously in the name of the Trinity. The use of the word 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 11 

supper confirms these remarks. Like baptism, this is a com- 
mon word used in a special sense. It has necessarily a new- 
meaning. Eating and drinking as men were accustomed to 
at supper in those days, would not express the meaning. 
Bear this in mind. The word supper denotes an ordinary 
^ meal ; but an ordinary meal is not the Lord's Supper. This 
Supper is bread and wine used religiously. The word bap- 
i tism denotes washing in water in divers ways ; but washing 
I in water is not the Lord's Baptism. This Baptism is water 
\ used religiously in the name of the Trinity. In these nine 
\ words you have the rite, and the whole of it. 
' 2. That this is the meaning attached to the word, and 
that any particular way of applying water is not essential, may 
be made still more evident. We have already established the 
fact that the word baptism signifies the application of a liquid 
in divers ways. Now, then, the question comes — Why has 
the Holy Ghost made use of a word which designates no one 
way of using a liquid 1 Plainly because the manner in which 
the water is applied, is not essential to the rite, any more than 
the manner of applying water is essential in a common wash- 
ing. 

3. But further ; let the reader inquire whether something 
may not be gathered from our Saviour's instructions respect- 
ing the nature of ceremonial washings, which will throw ad- 
ditional light on the point before us. A single hint from his 
lips will have weight with every honest searcher after truth. 
Let Christ be our teacher. Let us value what he has aught 
us to value, and lay no stress on what he evidently regarded 
ao unimportant. Now when he was washing his disciples' 
feet, Peter desired him to wash not his feet only. But he 
replied, " He that is washed [i. e. spiritually cleansed] 
needeth not, save to wash his feet" — i. e. needs to have a 
ceremonial washing but partially applied. Here is a statement 
of a general principle, loith respect to ceremonial washings. 



12 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

It shows that our Saviour deemed the quantity of water, and 
the manner of its application, of no importance. 

We shall show, in the following chapter, that if any partic- 
ular way of applying- water is more favored in the Bible than 
another, and more suitable to the design of baptism, it is 
sprinkling or pouring. 



CHAPTER II. 

MEANING OF THE WORD CONTINUED. SIGNIFICATION OF 
BAPTISM. 

Inquirer. Well, Sir, your remarks on the subject of bap- 
tism shook my confidence in my former opinions ; and wish- 
ing to hear both sides, I sought an interview with Mr. , 

who made altogether a different impression on my mind. 

Teacher. Pray tell me in what manner he treated the 
subject. 

Inquirer. He gave me many examples from dictionaries 
of different languages, and from Greek writers, (for he is 
quite a scholar,) in which the word baptize signifies to im- 
merse. He quoted also certain distinguished Pedobaptists. 

Teacher. But did he give any cases where it has other 
significations 1 In other words, did he allude to any exam- 
ples where the word means to pour, or simply to wash ? 

Inquirer. He did not. 

Teacher. But ought he not to have done this? 

Inquirer. Certainly, if it is ever used in these senses. 

Teacher. We do not deny, my friend, that baptize in the 
original sometimes signifies plunging a substance into a liquid ; 
but we have proved that it also signifies pouring a liquid upon 
a substance. What then? — We have here a word which de- 
notes the application of water in divers ways. If the word 
therefore denotes the application of water in divers ways, it is 
indeterminate, like our English word wash, and does not de- 
fine any one way in which water shall be applied in the reli- 
2 



14 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

gious rite. This conclusion is immovable. We have sus- 
tained it by a multitude of examples cited before ; and that 
all lexicographers concur in it, no intelligent Immerser will 
deny. 

One word as to quotations from distinguished Pedobaptists. 
They admit that the word means immerse, just as we have 

ADMITTED IT IN THESE REMARKS. NoW, SUppOSC yOU should 

go and report our remarks, in such a manner as to leave the 
impression that we have conceded that baptize means to im- 
merse, and nothing else — would that be honest 1 No. It 
would be falsehood under the cloak of truth.* And we have 

* As an illustraiion of the truth of this remark, a striking case has 
occurred while these sheets were going to press. The editor of the 
Christian Watchman has published an article to show that the word 
" baptize means immerse, and nothing else." And how does he show 
it? He quotes lexicons to the number of twenty-two, after this 
fashion : — 

" * Baptizo, properly immergo ac intingo in aquam mergo ; to im- 
merse, to dip, to plunge into water.' — Sc/deusner's Lex. 

" ' Baptizo, in its primary and radical sense — I cover with water. 
It is used to denote, 1st — I plunge or sink completely under water.' — 
Ewing's Lex. 

*' ' Bapto, to dip in, to immerse ; Baptizo, to submerge, sink.' — E. 
Robijxson's Lex. 

" ' Bapto, to dip, to plunge into water ; Baptizo, to immerse.' — 
J. Donegan^s Lex." 

We have taken the trouble to examine the authors above named, 
and have been astonished at the glaring injustice which has been 
done to them. We suppose, that, were we to examine the whole list, 
we should find most or all of them used in the same way. Let the 
reader take notice that these authors are represented by the editor as 
saying that the only meaning of the word is to immerse, dip, or 
plunge. He will then be surprised to learn, that they all give oihei 
significations, as follows : — 

ScHLEusNER says, the word means abluo, lavo, aqua, purgo ; i. e. 
to perform ablution, to wash, to purge with water, and also imbue. 

Robinson says — " In the New Testament it means — to wash, to 
perform ablution, to cleanse — also to tinge, to dye," &c. 

DoKEGAN says, it means to wash, to dye — to dye one's hair. 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 15 

been pained at this disingenuous dealing of many writers in 
favor of immersion. They have abused the minds of their 

EwiNG says — " In its primary and radical sense, it means to cover 
with water, or some other fluid, in whatever manner this is done ; 
whether by immersior^ or affusion, wholly or partially, permanently 
or for a moment. Hence the word is used in several different 
SENSES. It is used to denote to plung-e, or sink completely under 
water — to cover partially with water — to wet — to cover with water 
flowing or pouring upon — to wash m general, without specifying the 
mode — to wash for the special purpose of symbolical, ritual, or cere- 
monial purification." He gives examples of the use of the word: — 
*' ' He that is washed [baptized] from [the pollution of ] a dead body, 
and again toucheth it, what profit hath he by^ his Avashing?' — Sirach 
XXXI. 25, or xxxiv. 25. When this passage is compared with Num. 
six. 9 — 22, it will appear, that baptize is used by the apocryphal 
writer for the application of the water of sprinkling: ***** 
It may here be observed that ceremonial purification by immersion 
was always performed by the unclean person himself, (and indeed 
decency required this ; as this kind of purification never appears to 
have been the immersing of persons with their clothes on,) but that tlie 
mode was always different, ichen the ■purification ivas administered by 
another. It is in this sense that baptize, when employed in the New 
Testament, is almost always used." He further says, that — " To main- 
tain, as some have done, that baptize, when thus applied, ought always 
to be rendered plunge, dip, immerse, or wash, betrays inattention to 
its real force and import." 

Thus speak the lexicographers, whom the Watchman represents as 
saying that " baptize means immerse, and nothing else.'^ It will be 
seen that he makes them say that, by suppressing what they do say. 
After quoting his twenty-two lexicons, after this fashion, the Watch- 
man utters this remarkable sentence : — " TTiese are but specimens of 
the unanimous testimony of scholars and lexicographers, not one of 
whom ever gave the word the definition of sprinkling, pouring, or 
keel-hauling.-' / 

Mark it — he says not one of these " ever gave the word the defini 
Hon of sprinkling ;" whereas Ewing expressly says it is used, in a 
case referred to by^ him, for the application of the water of sprinkling. 
He further says that to maintain what the Watchman does maintain, 
"betrays inattention to its force and import," And yet the Watch- 



16 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

unlearned readers, by a sort of false dealing which puts a 
part of the truth in place of the whole. 

Inquirer. It seems strange to me, that so many Christians 
who are sincere and honest, and many of them highly intelli- 
gent, should contend that this word signifies only immersion, 
if there is no more foundation for their opinion than what now 
appears. 

Teacher. And does it not seem equally strange, that a 
much greater number of good men, equally honest, sincere 
and intelligent, should so positively deny that assumption, if 
there is no foundation for their denial 1 Though we protest 
against the use of human authority in such a question as this, 
it is fair to meet human authority with human authority. 
And let us ask, who were the translators of our English 
Bible ? This translation was completed by a galaxy of minds, 
read in the languages to an extent which few scholars now 
attain. And on this subject they followed the track struck 

man quotes him, as supporting what he thus expressly disclaims ! 
Now let us ask, in the fear of God, how do such mistakes, put forth 
by scores in a single article, occur? That the editor would wil- 
fully deceive the public, we may not believe. But we should not like 
to risk what little credit we have for scholarship, or moral probity, on 
such a declaration. It is a painful fact, that the Immersers' cause has 
for several generations been sustained by just such assertions, respect- 
ing authorities, right in the face of those authorities. We can well 
see why Immersers are so anxious to sustain such a declaration ; 
for their cause rests upon it. If the word has one other meaning, 
their id hole fabric falls. They choose to appeal to lexicons. This is 
but a secondary source of evidence. But after having proved our 
point from original sources, we have followed them to the lexicons, 
which they have selected, and find that every one, so far as we have 
consulted, disagrees with them ; and that their quotations are per- 
versions. If, by saying that these authors agree with them, they 
mean that these authors say that immersion is one of the meanings; 
very well; we agree with them. But it happens that they bring the 
quotations to show that the word has no other meaning ; and as to 
this point, not one agrees with them. 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 17 

out by the martyr Tyndal, and by his successors equally 
worthy. Why did they not thus translate? Do you say, 
because they were Pedobaptists ? But why were they Pedo- 
baptists? — were they so against their honest convictions'? 
And had not they the means of knowing? They could use 
the Greek and Latin as freely as their mother tongue. Tyn- 
dal was in fact the author, and his successors the endorsers, 
of this translation of the word. Was Tyndal " afraid to take 
up the cross, ^^ and go down the banks of Jordan? He was 
not afraid to go to the stake in defence of his translation ; 
for he did it. 

Inquirer. I have understood that the Greek church prac- 
tise immersion ; and are they not good authority on such a 
question ? 

Teacher. We see not how they, in their deep ignorance, 
have any better sources of knov/ledge, as to a rite established 
among Jews, than we have. They have vied with the Papal 
church in corruptions, in superstitions, and in placing undue 
stress on outward ceremonies. And as baptizing by immer- 
sion is one instance of departure from the simplicity of the 
Gospel, it is very natural that they should have adopted it. 
Though they do not lay as much stress on that mode as our 
Imraersers do, for they do not always practise it; and are 
therefore against the principle that it is essential to baptism. 
So that while the Greek church immerse, and sometimes 
immerse three times, they are against the principles of our 
Immersers. And if we are to suppose them to be better 
authority than others on this subject, we see not why w^e 
must not pay them the same deference on other subjects. If 
we begin to copy their corruptions, we know not where to 
end. 

Our object is, to ascertain the meaning attached to the 

word baptize by the sacred writers. Now, if it were true that 

its literal meaning were immerse, and that this was invariably 

its signification among the ancient Greeks, (whose authority 

2* 



16 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

in this matter must take the precedence of their degenerate 
descendants.) it would not follow that it must necessarily be 
employed in this sense by the writers of the Bible. When 
words pass from one country to another, and from a profane 
vocabulary into the sacred, their signification is often very 
much modified, and sometimes entirely changed. The literal 
meaning of the word spirit, for example, is ivind ; but who 
will argue from this fact that it has no other signification in 
the inspired writings ? Every scholar knows that the Scripture 
phraseology is peculiar. Hence the Bible is the only safe 
interpreter of Bible words. When therefore it is remem- 
bered, that the word baptize has different meanings in the 
Greek classics, and is used by the writers of the bible 

WHEN they could NOT HAVE MEANT BY IT IMMERSION, We 

see nothing authoritative in the practice of the modern Greek 
■church — corrupt, superstitious, and pleased with religious 
toys. 

Inquirer. My mind has been so long accustomed to asso- 
ciate immersion with the sound of baptism, that, even when 
my understanding is convinced, it seems to me like a perver- 
•sion of terms to call pouring baptism. 

Teacher. It is unquestionably difficult to rid the mind of 
early impressions. Nor, indeed, can we expect to do it in- 
stantly. The influence of erroneous views, once entertained, 
will be felt in the workings of the imagination, long after the 
higher powers of the mind have pronounced them false. 
But, my friend, did Homer pervert his own language, when 
he spoke of a lake baptized with the blood of a mouse 1 Did 
Plutarch pervert the word, when he called that a baptized 
bladder, which he said did not and could not go under water? 
If such writers could call the pouring of a liquid on a sub- 
stance baptism, it is certainly arrogance in us moderns to op- 
pose our fancy to their knowledge. And, furthermore, if 
this use of the word did not offend the taste of inspired men , 
if the apostle Paul did not scruple to call (Heb. ix. 10) the 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 19 

typical cleansings of the Jewish economy, laptisms, (Lev. iv. 
6 ; xvii. 6 ; Num. xix. 18 ; Lev. vii. 14 ; Num. xix. 21 ; 
Lev. xiv. 7, 51, &c.) when almost every case was performed 
hj sprinJcling , why should you feel any difficulty? Is not 
his authority to he relied on ? Nay, if God himself speaks 
of the outpourings of his Spirit as baptism, and thereby teaches 
us that He is satisfied with this use of the term, why should 
you not be 1 

Inquirer. With whatever confidence immersion has been 
pronounced to be the only meaning of the word baptize, the 
evidence certainly preponderates in your favor. Never could 
I exclude from the Lord's table Christian brethren, for ven- 
turing to use this word as God uses it ! But must I under- 
stand you to hold that our Saviour has left the mode of bap- 
tism wholly undefined 1 

Teacher. If the way of applying water in the rite consti- 
tutes the mode of baptism, he has left it undefined. But this 
is not the mode. Religious baptism is water applied reli- 
giously in the name of the Trinity. So much is essential — so 
much is defined. He who makes anything more essential to 
the ordinance, does it at his peril. He introduces an occasion 
of discord into the church of Christ. And by teaching for 
doctrines the commandments of men, he takes the responsi- 
bility of engendering strife and confusion in the house of God. 
To add to the commands of God, and to insist that our ad- 
ditions are God's commands, is as injurious to men and offen- 
sive to God, as to take away what he has commanded — as 
may be seen in the mammoth corruptions of the Romish 
church, which consist as much in additions as in subtrac- 
tions. 

Inquirer. But may we not suppose that some one way is 
better than another? And is it not more significant to plunge 
the subject into the water ? 

Teacher. That depends upon what baptism signifies. 
And this brings up an important principle. If we can dis- 



20 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

cover what is the thing- signified by baptism, that will help us 
to determine the most significant way. And surely the Bible 
has not left this matter in darkness — for unless one knows 
what the rite signifies, he would not know what exercises of 
mind he should have when he presents himself for baptism ; 
i. e. would not know how to obey the command to be bap- 
tized. 

Inquirer. This is a plain matter. If baptism can be 
shown to signify anything into which men are immersed, that 
would go far to prove immersion to be the way ; and on the 
other hand, if it signifies any influences that are uniformly 
spoken of as poured out or sprinkled upon men, then pouring 
or sprinkling would be more significant. The type should 
correspond to the antitype. 

Teacher. Baptism is an emblem of the work of the Holy 
Spirit on the human soul. So Paul seems to teach, Eph. v. 
25 — " Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that 
he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water 
[i. e. baptism, for Christ has no other washing of water] by the 
word." Here was the sanctifying and the cleansing, the 
antitype and the type. Again — "According to his mercy he 
saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of 
the Holy Ghost." That is, we are saved by that regener- 
ation, or sanctifying influence of the Spirit of God, of which 
the washing of water is an emblem. Again — " Let us draw 
near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our 
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed 
with pure water." Here the washing of the body with pure 
water (or baptism, the only religious washing) is joined with 
the thing signified by it — a heart sprinkled or purified. Again 
— " The like figure whereunto, baptism, doth now save us, 
not the putting off the filth of the flesh, [i. e. not the mere 
outward cleansing by baptismal water,] but the answer of a 
good conscience," — that is, our being purified, so that we 
live with a good conscience. 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 21 

Ag;aiii — " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he cannot see the kingdom of God." Now why are water 
and the Spirit thus connected, if the water (i. e. baptism) be 
not an emblem of the Spirit? Surely the water is not a co- 
ag-ent with the Spirit in the new birth. Again, here is a 
passage still more decisive. Acts xxii. 16 — " Arise, be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins." How can baptism wash 
away sins ? In no way, except it be as a symbol of washing, 
the thing to be proved. 

Further — the work of the Holy Spirit is called baptism in 
many places, which any one may see for himself. And what 
can be more decisive 1 Prof. Stuart, on this subject, observes 
— " Under the ancient dispensation the rites were divided into 
two great classes, viz., those significant of purification, and 
those significant of atonement for sin. Nothing could be more 
appropriate than this. Man needed the one, and the other, 
in order to find acceptance with God : the one is the work of 
the Spirit, and the other of the Saviour who redeemed us by 
his blood. Is there any change in the essential conditions of 
salvation, under the new dispensation? None, we must 
answer. Are not the significant symbols, then, under the 
new dispensation, a summary of those which existed under 
the old 1 The behef of this spontaneously forces itself upon 
my mind. The work of the Spirit is still symbolized under 
the Gospel, and a Savior's blood is still represented — the one 
baptism signifies, the other is as plainly indicated by the 
Lord's Supper." 

Our object is here to show, in brief, the close connection 
between the baptism of the Spirit and baptism with water, 
and that the one is a symbol of the other. Now if baptism by 
water is an emblem of baptism by the Spirit, we have only to 
look into the Bible and see in what way we are brought into 
contact with the influences of the Spirit ? If we are currently 
represented as being put into the Spirit, or plunged into the 
Spirit, we concede the whole matter in question ; and if, on 



23 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

the other hand, the Spirit is currently said to he poured out 
upon us, or sprinkled upon us, then you must concede that 
pouring or sprinkling is the more significant way. We pro- 
ceed, then, to quote some instances: — " I will pour water 
upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground. I 
will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine 
offspring" — Isa. 44. "Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and ye shall be clean ; and I will put my Spirit - 
within you, [not put you into my Spirit] and cause you to 
walk in my statutes." " I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
flesh" — Joel ii. 28. "Until the Spirit be poured out" — 
Isaiah xxxii. 15. "For I have poured out my Spirit" — 
Ezekiel xxxix. 29. 

Next take some examples from the New Testament. John 
saw the Spirit descending, and lighting upon Jesus — Matt, 
iii. 16. The Holy Ghost/e// on all them which heard the 
word ; and Peter's friends " were astonished, because that on 
the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost ' ' — 
Acts X. "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost /e// on 
them, as on us at the beginning ; then remembered I the words 
of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized loith water, 
hut ye shall be baptized loith the Holy Ghost.'" 

We have thus given a few specimens, to show that the 
Holy Ghost is said " to fall " upon men, to be " poured out " 
upon them. And it is in reference to this subject, that God 
promises "to sprinkle clean water upon us," and that his 
grace shall " come down as rain upon the mown grass, and 
as showers which water the earth." It is of no consequence, 
however, as to the point before us, whether these things are 
said in connection with baptism or not. They are brought 
simply to show in what manner the Scriptures speak of the 
communication of the Spirit's influences. Now, then, if the 
thing signified is uniformly represented as sprinkled, or poured 
out, upon the subject, that which signifies it may be pouring 
or sprinkling. Indeed, " it is by no means probable that God 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 23 

should speak of his own operations one way, and symbolically 
represent them in a different way ; that he should promise to 
sprinkle or pour out his Spirit upon us, and to confirm this 
promise would command us to be plunged into water. There 
would be no analogy, in this case, between the promise and 
the seal ; and the discrepance would give rise to a confusion 
of ideas. This I conceive to be an argument of considerable 
force in favor of our mode of administering baptism, and an 
objection against immersion which cannot be easily evaded." 
V. Dick. TheoL 



CHAPTER III. 

BURIAL WITH CHRIST. ITS IMPORT. 

In our last chapter we set forth the design of baptism, and 
showed conclusively that it is to represent the work of the 
Holy Spirit upon the soul, and that his influences are invari- 
ably represented as coming down, either sprinkled or poured, 
upon the subject. And the inquirer will recollect the ad- 
mitted principle, that the type and antitype should correspond. 

We are aware that Immersers make baptism to be a sign 
of fellowship with Christ in his burial, and to be the main 
design. This view they found upon two passages — Romans 
vi. and Colossians ii. 12. A glance at these passages, in 
their connection, will show that great difficulties, at least, 
stand in the way of this conclusion. 

The first question is, whether these two passages more 
clearly teach that burial is the grand design, than those nu- 
merous passages which we have quoted teach that purifica- 
tion is the grand design. Let the inquirer look over those 
passages, and compare. And in this connection we will ob- 
serve, that the two ideas of burial in a grave and purification 
by water are incongruous. Both cannot he held. Purity 
contrasts with the corruption and filth of the grave. 

2. But supposing this difficulty surmounted, another pre- 
sents itself. Before Immersers can draw their inference, it 
must be proved that the apostle in these passages refers to 
water baptism. Their whole argument rests on this assump- 
tion — and yet it is a mere assumption. And if it should turn 
out that the apostle means by baptism a spiritual purification, 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 25 

(i. e. a spiritual baptism,) as most surely he does, then all 
semblance of an argument from these texts would vanish ; 
for we have seen how spiritual baptism is performed. 

3. This difficulty being surmounted, another comes. It is 
a question not so easily settled, as to what the likeness shall 
be. If the reader will turn to the passage, he will see that 
there is a comparison with death, with crucifixion, with 
burial, &c. Suppose we insist that baptism shall imitate the 
form of Christ's death, and not his burial, (for surely the two 
things are very distinct,) what would the Immersers say? 
Paul says, baptized into his death ; and if the passage 
is in an)'' way decisive of the mode of water baptism — if 
this reasoning from it is conclusive — it concludes both ways : 
that baptism must imitate crucifixion, or at least, after the 
Papists' mode, bear the sign of the cross ; and must also 
imitate his burial. ' 

4. This difficulty being surmounted, another comes. How 
shall we baptize in a way to imitate a burial ? Nations have 
various modes of burial, but in no case do they bury by thrust- 
ing the body through the soil. The common modes of burial 
are more like pouring or sprinkling. The body is placed in 
an open grave, and the earth is poured or sprinkled upon it. 
The classical emblem has been (jactus pulveris) a handful of 
earth tossed in the air. Our Episcopal friends represent a 
burial by sprinkling earth upon the coffin. 

5. This difficulty being surmounted, another comes. If 
baptism must imitate the form of any burial, it must imitate 
that of Christ ; and Christ was not buried in the common 
way. His body was not su.nk in the ground, but merely laid 
away on a shelf in a chamber of an excavated rock. 

These are some of the difficulties that meet any intelligent 

mind, on the first glance at the subject. In order to set this 

subject well before the mind, we will state the true meaning 

of the apostle, and then point out the sources of the Immersers^ 

3 



20 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

error. The two passages are alike. Take the case in Ro- 
mans : what is the drift of Paul's remarks'? He is showing 
that the doctrines of grace do not warrant one to continue in 
sin, that grace may abound. He is attributing to the baptism 
of which he speaks, effects which water baptism is inadequate 
to produce. His main idea is, that such is the nature of a 
union with Christ, — a union brought about by the purification 
of the heart, i. e. spiritual baptism, — that to speak of those 
thus baptized continuing in sin, is as great a contradiction as 
to speak of a living dead man. " Shall we continue in sin, 
that grace may abound ? God forbid. How shall we that 
are dead to sin live any longer therein 1 ' ' Mark the effects 
whicli he attributes to the baptism of which he speaks. This 
baptism is followed necessarily by death to sin. It is not 
enough to say, such ought to be dead to sin ; the certainty that 
they will be is essential to the argument. Indeed, the argu- 
ment is good for nothing without absolute certainty. Now 
does that certainty follow water baptism 1 Far from it. It 
follows spiritual baptism, and no other. 

It is as if he had said — How shall they who have received 
spiritual baptism, (in other words, who have been brought 
into spiritual union with Christ,) continue in sin? They are 
united to Christ in his death to the world. Taking fire at 
the thought, he gives utterance to his feelings in a variety of 
strong expressions of the certainty of that death, and conse- 
quent insensibility to the inducements to continue in sin. 
* ' V/hat is the effect of natural dissolution ? Is it not the 
interruption of all our former appetites? What is the condi- 
tion of a man buried? Does he hunger or thirst any more? 
Will beauty move his love ? Will the tabret or the harp, the 
richest wines or the most luxuriant viands, entice him be- 
yond the bounds of temperance ? Load the coffin with gold , 
clothe the skeleton with scarlet and ermine ; will this awaken 
his avarice, or will these elevate his pride ? Surely, if the 
soul perceives at all the objects which surround her recent 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. -27 

dwelimg-, she perceives them but to recognise their utter 
vanity, and to feel that these are not the things which caa 
smy longer contribute to her happiness!" Such are the 
effects of that death to sin which follows a union with Christ ; 
and in this sense the apostle says of true Christians, that they 
are crucified, dead, and buried. 

The above remarks make it clear, that the passage in Ro- 
mans refers to a spiritual baptism and purification, and can 
decide nothing as to the form in which water is to be applied. 

The passage in Colossians still more clearly bears this 
meaning. Read it, " In whom also ye are circumcised, 
with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the 
body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ: 
buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with 
him, through faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
him from the dead." Now here observe that the Colossians 
are said to have been circumcised in Christ, and to be buried 
with him in baptism, and in such a way, as to show that the 
circumcision and baptism refer to the same thing. That the 
circumcision imports a spiritual purification is certain ; for it 
is a circumcision made ivithout hands, in putting off the body 
of sin. And if the circumcision is a purification made with- 
out hands, most surely is the baptism one made without 
hands ; for both are put in the same relations, and import the 
same thing. And, further, they are said to be buried with 
Christ in baptism, and then risen with him through faith of 
the operation of God. Now, as is the burial, so is the resur- 
rection. If it is a literal burial in the water, the resurrection 
is a literal rising out of the water. But they had risen through 
faith of the operation of God. Yet persons immersed do not 
thus rise by faith. The passage then, by necessity, imports 
a death to sin, and a resurrection to newness of life ; and has 
no reference to the outward application of water, and deter- 
mines nothing as to the manner in which water should be 
applied. 



28 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

Now, having given the true meaning of the apostle in 
these passages, we are prepared to examine the sources of 
the Immersers' error, touching them. 

1. The first source of error is the imagination. The per- 
son has heard these words so frequently repeated at the im- 
mersion of individuals, that they have made an impression 
upon his mind, and \ie fancies some analogy between immer- 
sion and Christ's burial. Few are aware how much imagi- 
nation has to do with this subject, and how much impression 
has been made by pictorial representations. And as error has 
been promoted in that way, may not the friends of truth learn 
a lesson as to their duty of securing the imagination on the 
side of truth ? And why should not our children be taught, 
by arguments addressed to the eye, the analogy between the 
falling drops of water and the influences of the Spirit, which 
are represented as coming down like the rain upon the 
grass ? 

2. The second source of error is a literal understanding of 
the apostle's language. Now, if the burying is to be taken 
literally, so also the other phrases must be, such as death, 
crucified, planted, &c. Mark it, if the burial is literal, the 
death is literal also. If there must be a literal burial, there 
must be a literal death!!! Again, the effects, as we have 
already seen, are such as water baptism cannot produce. 
These brief hints are sufficient to satisfy every intelligent 
reader that the literal interpretation cannot be maintained. 

3. Among those who admit a figurative sense, there is 
another source of error. The figure must have a basis ; and 
some say, that, unless it is founded on some outward form, it 
can have no basis. Why use the figure buried, they ask, if 
the apostle had not in his mind's eye something which looked 
like burial? We answer: The mind, in framing figurative 
language, as frequently fixes on the effects produced, as upon 
any outward circumstance. For example, Cicero said of the 
conspiracy of Cataline, which he had crushed — "It is dead^ 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. S§ 

tamed out, and buried.''^ His mind in framing that figure was 
not upon a funeral, or a grave, or a burial ; but upon the effects 
of the death, to wit, the utter cessation of all trouble from the 
conspiracy. So we say of a man condemned to the penitentiary 
for life, that he is dead to society, and buried. Why use that 
figure 1 It has nothing that looks like a burial for its basis. 
This also is based on certain effects resulting from death and 
burial. While bishop Butler was living in an obscure village, 
one inquired if he was dead. " No," another replied, "but he 
IS buried.^^ Why use that figure? Why not contend here 
that there was something in the author's eye that looked like a 
burial 1 The figure was based on one of the effects of a burial, 
in that he was forgotten by the world. By this time, the 
inquirer will see that figures of this kind may be used, with- 
out the most distant allusion to anything that looks like a 
burial. 

Now then, when Paul said of Christians, that they were 
dead, buried, and crucified with Christ, it is easy to see that 
he had only certain results in his mind. He meant only to 
say, that as Christ, when buried, was insensible to this world, 
so are those, who are spiritually in union with him, dead to 
the inducements to continue in sin. 

4. Another source of this error lies in taking a part for the 
vjJiole of the apostle'' s comparison in these texts. The Immer- 
ser feels bound to imitate Christ in only one of the particulars 
of the figurative representation, while consistency would re- 
quire him to go through and to make the form of his baptism 
correspond to all the other particulars. If the form of bap- 
tism must imitate the burial of Christ, much more must it be 
a baptism into death ; for the text is even more strong in that 
particular. It says, "as many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death.''^ Now, the same 
rule that would require a literal burial, would require c Zz/era/ 
death. And then, if in baptism we must imitate the form of 
Christ's burial, we must, for the same reason, imitate also 
3* 



30 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

the form of his death ; that is, his crucifixion. We must not 
only be actually put to death before our burial, but we must 
be put to death on a cross, since the text lays even more 
stress on the crucifixion and the death, than it does on the 
burial. And to carry faithfully out this mode of interpreting 
the passage, our baptism must imitate not only the mode of 
burial, but also that oi planting ; for the text also says, " we 
have been planted together in the likeness of his death." So 
we see the Immersers' error comes from fixing on one part of 
the comparison, and overlooking other parts quite as im- 
portant. 

5. Still another source of error is a neglect of making the 
several parts of the comparison correspond with each other. For 
instance, in the passage in Romans, the resurrection following 
the burial is a spiritual one ; a resurrection to " newness of 
life." Of course, the death and burial preceding must be a 
death and burial to sin, and not a burial under water. So 
in Colossians, the resurrection is a rising "through faith of 
the operation of God," and not through the strength of the 
baptizer's arm. And yet the Immerser fails to see that that 
should be a spiritual burial that goes before and corresponds 
with such a spiritual resurrection. He fails also to make the 
baptism and the circumcision, both representing one effect, to 
correspond with each other, as we have shown. 

6. But the main source of error on this subject consists in 
overlooking altogether the main design of the rite of baptism. 
We have shown, in a former article, that its main design is, 
to represent the outpouring upon us of the purifying and the 
sanctifying influences of the Spirit. And though the Scrip- 
tures are so full on this point, as we have shown, yet Immer- 
sers are loth to allow this at all ; and if they do allow it, they 
will have it that the main design is to represent a burial. 
And yet, strange as it may seem, the Scriptures say no- 
thing OF ANY SUCH DESIGN ; AND DO NOT EVEN HINT AT IT, 

unless these two passages contain the hint ; and these, as we 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 31 

have shown beyond all ground for doubt, have no reference 
to water baptism at all. 

Another source of error touching these passages consists 
in overlooking the fact, that being buried cannot be made an 
act of duty ; while receiving baptism supposes an act of obe- 
dience; and supposes a mind apprehending the design of bap- 
tism, and recognising the truth symbolized by the rite ; and 
at the time of receiving the rite surrendering the heart to the 
sway of that truth. Now if the rite imports our need of the 
purifying influence of the Holy Spirit — if it be the sign and 
seal of our surrender of ourselves to God in the covenant of 
grace, and receiving the seal of the Spirit of grace, the mind 
may well correspond with this design, in the act of receiving 
the rite. And even if it imported our death to sin, the spirit 
of obedience while receiving the rite might go forth in a sur- 
render of ourselves to death, and in a pledge of dying to sin 
and living to God. But if the design is made to consist in a 
burial, the spirit of obedience cannot touch it. As one is sup- 
posed to be dead before he is buried, he cannot exercise obe- 
dience in submitting to a burial. Christ performed his highest 
act of obedience when he yielded to death on the cross ; but 
he did no act of obedience when his corpse was taken and laid 
away in Joseph's family vault. The martyrs have put forth 
a glorious spirit of obedience, when they have yielded to the 
stroke of the executioner ; but they had nothing to do in what 
concerned their corpses afterwards — they did not obey in being 
buried. The burial is supposed to be wholly the act of others ; 
ind in respect to it the person buried is wholly insensible. In 
what state of mind then must one receive the rite, in order to 
have his feelings at the time correspond to the design of 
the ordinance 1 If the posture and treatment of the body 
must imitate a burial, what, we ask, must be the exercises of 
mind in the mean time, in order to conform to this? and the 
answer should be — none at all; since the person buried has 
no consciousness of his burial. 



33 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

Yet it is very essential, when we come to the sealing ordi* 
nances, that the mind work in harmony with the design of 
the ordinance. When we come to the Lord's table, we are 
required by faith to discern the Lord's body. And why is it 
not as important in baptism, that the mind fasten on the 
design of the ordinance, and feel the promptings of a holy 
obedience in correspondence with it ? Yet if burial be that 
design, a spirit of obedience cannot reach it, unless we sup- 
pose the absurdity of being buried alive. This consideration 
of itself is sufficient to determine that the design of baptism 
is not that of burial. 

So that the very first principle of the Immersers' theory, to 
wit, that baptism was designed to imitate a burial, is an 
assumption without a shadow of foundation. And not only 
has it a mere guess for its basis, and for its whole super- 
structure, but it involves the absurdity of supposing a spirit of 
obedience to animate a corpse in its burial. 

It would protract this chapter to an inconvenient length, 
should we here commence the examination of the actual cases 
of baptism recorded in the New Testament, and show, as we 
intend, that there is no case in the New Testament in 

WHICH the baptism MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN BY SPRINKLING 
OR POURING, AND MANY CASES IN WHICH IT COULD NOT HAVE 
BEEN BY IMMERSION. 



CHAPTER IV. 



Inquirer. Your remarks on those passages which speak of a 
burial with Christ by baptism, presented the subject in a light 
which was new to me. That the apostle is speaking of spirit- 
ual baptism is clear from this fact alone, that he represents it 
as bringing the soul into sympathy with Christ in his indiffer- 
ence to the world ; which effect does not follow water baptism. 
Although this has been my opinion for some time, I have all 
along supposed that the figurative expression, " buried with 
Christ," must have its basis in something external, which 
looked like a burial. This I am now ready to confess was a 
childish fancy. We notice in Paul's writhigs a very frequent 
use of the figures of being dead, crucified, &c., in a way in 
which he could have had in his mind's eye only an effect of 
death, crucifixion, &c. And if any one will watch the work- 
ings of his mind when using this class of figures, I think he 
will be convinced, that the mind generally has before it some 
one or more of the effects of death, and very rarely anything 
which looks like a corpse, a funeral, or a grave. I remember 
that one of our missionaries, just as he was leaving his native 
shores never to return, said to a friend at parting, "I have 
buried my friends alive." Now evidently here was no allu- 
sion to any external mode of burying^ but simply to one effect 
of being buried, viz. , that he was never to see his friends again . 

This all seems plain so far. And as this has been the main 
point with me, I see not but that I must admit that the Scrip- 
tures are far from making it clear that immersion is essential 
to baptism. But as you say that the Scriptures lay no great 



34 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

stress upon the mode in which water is applied, would it not 
be best for all to practise immersion, in order to promote har- 
mony among Christians, by meeting tender consciences on 
their own ground? 

Teacher. We have many serious objections to immersion, 
which we could state if it were necessary. True christian 
harmony never can be promoted by departing from a mode 
evidently scriptural, to adopt one which has originated in the 
fancy of minds morbidly inclined to lay an undue stress on an 
external rite. This method of harmonizing with those super- 
stitiously inclined, gave rise to the corruptions of the Romish 
church. We object more to immersion than to any other 
mode of applying water, because it is further from the main 
design of baptism. The Scriptures, as we have seen, repre- 
sent baptism as an emblem of purification by the influences 
of the Holy Spirit, which influences are uniformly described 
as poured out upon us. Now when the Scriptures invariably 
represent the spiritual infl-uences as sprinlded or poured upon 
the subject, for us to put the subject into the symbolic water, 
would seem to be too great a departure from the scriptural 
mode. We object to immersion, because it is a literal washing. 
That is certainly the best symbol which strikes the mind at 
once as merely a symbol, and from its very simplicity compels 
it to pass beyond it to the thing signified. Not to multiply 
objections, we could not repeat our baptism to meet the de- 
mands of Immersers ; nor could we apply the screws of close 
communion, and unchurch those of our brethren who should 
not see fit to go with us. So that, even if we should allow 
those who have not been baptized to be immersed, we could 
not harmonize with the exclusive principle of Immersers. 
This principle constitutes the very basis of their denomina- 
tional existence. It is the ligament which binds them together. 
And you see it is one of very serious import and consequences. 

Inquirer. True — such a principle ought not to be adopted, 
but for imperious reasons. No one certainly can be justified 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. Z5 

in adopting it, except on grounds which are set clear from 
every reasonable doubt. 

Teacher. How strange, then, appears their position, and 
how high the arrogance of their pretensions — how causeless 
the discords which they thrust into the house of God, when 
it is so evident that the entire basis and structure of their 
argument is composed of nothing but guesses! 

Inquirer. That is a strong expression. 

Teacher. But no more strong than true. When, for ex- 
ample, Immersers speak so confidently of the apostles im- 
mersing their converts, it is, to say the least, but a guess. 

Inquirer. But is it not more than a guess that John im- 
mersed his converts 1 

John's baptism. 

Teacher. You are a little too fast. John was not one of 
the apostles, nor was his baptism the Christian rite. And 
here, by the way, you see that a guess lies at the very founda- 
tion of the Immerser's argument. In order to get the sup- 
posed benefit of John's practice, it is guessed that John's 
baptism was Christian baptism. And one single passage of 
Scripture spoils this guess at once. Paul at Ephesus, (Acts 
xix.) " finding certain disciples," said to them, " Have ye re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said 
unto him. We have not so much as heard whether there be 
any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them. Unto what then 
were ye baptized? And they said. Unto .John's baptism." 
After some instructions, showing the different intent of John's 
baptism, " they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 
That the baptism which they received from John was not 
Christian baptism, appears from the fact that they never had 
heard of the Holy Ghost, and of course could not have been 
baptized in his name. And, furthermore, it is not to be sup- 
posed that John baptized in the name of Jesus, for he would 



36 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

not have baptized Jesus in the name of Jesus. But to put the 
question beyond all doubt, the apostle did not consider them as 
having received the Christian rite, as is evident from the fact 
that he baptized them. It would be superfluous to give other 
reasons. Here is Scripture against a guess ! 

But suppose we give them the advantage of that guess, 
and, for the sake of argument, allow that John's baptism is to 
be taken as a guide for us : — how do they arrive at the cer- 
tainty that he immersed ? In every step of their argument 
they proceed by guesses. They say that he immersed, be- 
cause the word baptize means to immerse, and nothing else. 
But we have already proved that this word has various shades 
of meaning, and does not define any particular way of apply- 
ing water. Here then is one guess. They say that he im- 
mersed, because he went to the Jordan for this purpose. But 
were there no other reasons for resorting thither ? If we could 
conceive of no necessity for his seeking some such place as 
the region about Jordan, except for the convenience of im- 
mersing, then the inference which Immersers draw from this 
circumstance would appear more plausible. On the other 
hand, if there ivas an equal necessity for the selection of such a 
place, V)hether he baptized by affusion or immersion, then this 
circumstance proves nothing in favor of any particular mode 
of baptism. Let us now examine the facts. John was a 
field preacher, and we read that he came preaching in the 
wilderness. The immense muhitudes that flocked together to 
hear him, made it necessary for him to withdraw from the nar- 
row streets of the cities, to the open country in the neighbor- 
hood of Jordan ; and that, being the place of his preaching, 
would naturally be the place of his baptizing. You see, then, 
that necessity compelled him to select an open country, ybr other 
purposes than immersion. Who can say that those other pur- 
poses were not the sole cause of his withdrawing from the 
cities and villages? This is at least possible. And if it be 
only possible, the Inmierser's certainty is instantly converted 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 37 

into a guess. But we contend that it is highly probable. 
Nay, there are other circumstances connected with John's 
ministry, which we are bound to take into consideration, and 
which render the guess that he immersed perfectly incredible. 
We read that " there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Ju- 
dea, and all the region round about Jordan, and ivere baptized of 
him.'^ If in a papal country some new ceremony should come 
into vogue, attracting that absorbing interest which John's 
baptism did, few of the people would fail to rush forward with 
the multitude, to receive the advantage of it. The Jeivs ivere 
even more disposed to value outward ceremonies than the Papists 
It is therefore certain that immense multitudes flocked to 
John's baptism. The passage of Scripture which I have 
quoted, interpreted by the circumstances, cannot import less 
than 500,000. Suppose that he immersed one every minute — 
to have immersed 500,000, he must have stood breast high in 
the water, twelve hours every day, for nearly two whole years. 
But his ministry was little more than a year and a half, and 
during part of that time he was in prison ! Where is the 
man, however, who could remain in the water twelve hours 
every day successively, for even one year? or where is the 
man who could immerse sixty persons an hour, for twelve 
hours in succession, and repeat the process every day for a 
year] We read (John x. 41) that "John did no miracle." 
But if John did this, his entire life was one prodigious mira- 
cle ! Perhaps you may say that 500,000 are more, probably, 
than went out to him. Very well — take the smallest number 
which, in your opinion, the record will warrant, and you will 
not escape from this difficulty. When we consider the brief 
duration of John's ministry, the time he must necessarily have 
spent in preaching, his imprisonment, the time needed to re- 
cruit his exhausted bodily powers, the days of the year when 
he could not have immersed, &c., we are fully satisfied that 
he could not have immersed 80,000. It is, therefore, wholly 
incredible, that the immense multitudes which he baptized- 
4 



38 HINTS TO AN INQITIRER. 

could have been immersed. If he baptized, however, accord-^ 
ing- to the custom of the priests, and took a bunch of hyssop 
and sprinkled the people as they passed him, he could have 
done it. 

Now, viewing- all the circumstances in the case, where is 
the certainty that John imm«rsed ? The confident assumption 
of Immersers in regard to his practice, is a guess against, to 
say the least, the strongest probability. 

Inquirer. But did not John baptize in Enon, because there 
was much water there ? 

Teacher. It requires one guess to establish the conclusion 
that he went therefor the sake of immersing. We say that 
there are other and more probable reasons why he chose that 
place. He would not need much water, or " many waters,'^ 
i. e. many streams or springs of water, (as it is in the Greek,) 
for immersing. For that purpose, one stream would suffice. 
Why did he need many streams ? why was it necessary for 
him to select a place watered with many springs ? This is the 
question which presses upon us for an answer. Now it is 
certain that he could not have chosen such a place for immer- 
sion. The simple fact that the word is j^lural, {many streams 
or springs,) decides this point. One man could not immerse 
in Tnany places at once, nor could he need many rivulets or 
springs for that purpose. Why, then, must this field preacher 
go to Enon, a place well supplied with springs? Because it 
was no easy matter to find water in that region, to accommo- 
date the thousands that came to him, with their camels and 
other beasts. Enon, furnished with many springs, afforded 
rare conveniences for a camp-meeting, assembled to remain 
many days. So that, in whatever way he baptized, there ivere 
other and more important reasons, for his selection of that place, 
than the convenience of immersing. 

Inquirer. I see clearly, that to base the duty of immer- 
sion on such a foundation, is to base it on a guess. We 
surely cannot maintain that a man is influenced in the choice 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 39 

of a spot by one particular reason, when other and hettet 
reasons are known to exist. 

Teacher. And when, too, that particular reason, as in 
this case, does not answer the question why he needed many 
springs or streams. 

Inquirer. Very true. But is there not a better founda- 
tion for the assumption that our Saviour was baptized by 
immersion ? 

Christ's baptism. 

Teacher. It requires one guess to reach the conclusion 
that Christ is our example in baptism. John's baptism was a 
Jewish rite, under the old dispensation. What have we to do 
with it ? Before we can feel bound ourselves to follow Christ 
in the observance of a Jeivish ceremony, or at liberty to im- 
pose any such duty upon others, we must have at least some 
proof that he designed this act for our imitation. But not the 
shadow of such proof exists. On the contrary, the guess of 
Immersers implies such a gross misconception of the design of 
our Saviour's baptism, — a misconception so plainly in the face 
of Scripture, — that when we hear them speak with so much 
confidence of "Jordan's fioods," and of "following Christ 
into the water," we literally blush for them. Christ'' s hap- 
tisfn was his introduction into the priesfs office. The Mosaic 
law required every priest, when thirty years of age, (Num. 
iv. 3, 23, 30, 35,) to be consecrated to their sacred work by 
being washed with water. (Lev. viii. 6.) As a symbol of 
the anointing of the Holy Spirit, they were also anointed with 
oil. Now mark the coincidences. When Jesus came to 
John, he was about thirty years old, (Luke iii. 21, 23,) and 
was just about entering upon his office as priest ; — after bap- 
tism he was anointed by the descent of the Holy Ghost, and 
commenced immediately his public duties. The apostle Paul 
tells us, (Heb. v. 5,) that Christ did not glorify himself to be 
made a high priest, but he that said unto him, " Thou art 



40 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Here it is ex- 
pressly said that the Father glorified him hy making him a 
high priest, when he said, "Thou art my Son; this day 
have I begotten thee." And this was said at his baptism. 
(Matt. iii. 17.) 

An examination of Scripture compels us, either to admit that 
this vjas the design of Chrisfs baptism, or deny that he fulfilled 
all righteousness. His words to John (Matt. iii. 15) imply 
that some laio then existing, and which he was bound to ful- 
fil, made it proper for him to be baptized. But what law? 
Not the law of Christian baptism, for the rite itself did not at 
that time exist. Not the moral law, for Christ was no sin- 
ner : and no violations of that code made it necessary for him 
to receive the baptism of repentance. To what law then did 
he refer? Unquestionably to the ceremonial law, which is 
nothing to us, but which he was born under, and bound to 
fulfil. There was something in that law, as his own words 
imply, which made it necessary for him to be baptized. To 
that law, therefore, we must go for instruction, if we would 
obtain scriptural views of ^Ae design of his baptism. Now in 
that code we find a statute requiring every priest to be con- 
secrated by the washing of water ; and as this is the only 
statute in the code, which made it necessary for him to be bap- 
tized, there is no room to doubt that this is the statute to 
which he referred. If he did not refer to this statute, he 
referred to nothing, and his reply to John was without any 
meaning whatever. And, furthermore, if he was not baptized 
in obedience to this statute, here was one statute which was 
not obeyed by him, and consequently he did not " fulfil all 
righteousness." We are, therefore, brought to this alterna- 
native, viz., either to admit that Christ our Priest was bap- 
tized in obedience to this statute, or to deny that he fulfilled 
all righteousness ! 

Inquirer. These considerations convince me that your 
views in regard to the design of Christ's baptism are correct 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 41 

So far you have Scripture on your side, and Immersers nothing- 
hut fancy. It is really matter of wonder with me, that intel- 
ligent Christians can be so positive, where their premises are 
so perfectly fanciful, and where Scripture is so decidedly 
against them. But admitting your views in regard to the 
design of Christ's baptism, was he not immersed? And 
did not the apostles adopt the mode in which he was bap- 
tized ? 

Teacher o On what do you base the certainty that he was 
immersed 1 

Inquirer. We read that " when he was baptized he went 
up straightway out of the water." 

Teacher. Observe, this was something which Christ did 
after his baptism, and was no part of that ordinance. The 
assumption of Immersers is founded upon a mistake of the 
import of the preposition '^ out of.''^ The true sense of the 
Greek preposition is from, not "out of;" and it marks the 
place from which he went up, without at all suggesting the 
idea that Jesus had been in the water. The following trans- 
lation gives the exact meaning of the original, — " he went up 
without delay from the water." Now what is there here so 
conclusive in favor of immersion? As John was preaching 
close by the Jordan, he would go of course to the river to 
baptize. And whether he performed the ceremony by immer- 
sion, sprinkling, or pouring, there was an equal necessity for 
descending the banks to the stream, and of ascending the banks 
from the stream. Shall that, therefore, which our Saviour 
must have done, whether he was baptized by immersion or 
affusion, be taken as proof that he was immersed? The 
Methodist elder sometimes stands in the river, and pours the 
water upon the heads or faces of his converts. John might 
have taken his station in the river, for convenience, as the 
number to be baptized was very great, and have administered 
the rite in the same way. 
4* 



42 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

Inquirer. I see that this circumstance leaves the manner 
of our Saviour's baptism an uncertainty ; — ^but still is it not 
more probable that he was immersed 1 

Teacher. Probabilities will not answer the Immersers 
any good purpose. Surely that exclusive principle, which 
unchurches two thirds of the disciples of Christ, can never be 
justified, on the ground of a slender probability. In this 
instance, however, probabilities are against them. There is 
in fact the greatest degree of certainty that our Saviour teas 
baptized by affusion. We have already proved that his bap- 
tism was introductory to his priest's office. The ceremonial 
law required that the washing of the priests, (Lev. viii. 6,) 
when consecrated to their office, should be performed by 
sprinkling. (Num. viii. 7.) According to the Scriptures, 
therefore, Jesus, our Priest, was sprinkled. 

Inquirer. If his baptism was designed as his consecra- 
tion to his priestly office, it is certainly more scriptural to 
believe that he was sprinkled. It would hardly benefit 
Immersers to appeal to Christ's example in this particu- 
lar. 

Teacher. His example, so far as it touches the mode of 
baptism, is wholly in our favor. And if the apostles copied 
the mode in which he was baptized, we need go no farther 
for proof that they practised affusion or sprinkling. 

As we are now about to leave John's baptism, carefully 
review the ground already travelled over, and in view of the 
argument thus far developed, decide whether such a degree 
of certainty belongs to the side of the question espoused by 
Immersers, that they can be justified in disowning numerous 
churches of Christ, and refusing to eat the Lord's Supper 
with thousands of their brethren in Christ, merely because 
they have not received the waters of baptism in their par- 
ticular way ! ! ! 

Remember that this controversy touches more than the 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 43 

simple question of immersion. It is frequently said to the 
young convert, by those who practise immersion, " Join us, 
and you will be sure to be right ; if the way in M^hich the 
water is applied is not essential, you will be right ; and 
if it is essential, you will be right." But stop- — there is a 
deception lurking here. If you join with immersers, you 
countenance their exclusive principle; and are you sure that 
that will be right ? Are you sure that it will be pleasing to 
the great Head of the Church, for you to give the sanction 
of your example to a principle so contracted, so contrary 
to the spirit of the age, so withering to some of the best 
feelings of the regenerated heart — a principle which the light 
and the fire of an approaching day shall consume ? 

Inquirer. I cannot but believe, that it is our Lord's 
will, that his table should be the place, where all his true 
followers should merge their minor differences in mutual 
love. It would seem as if this sacred spot should be com- 
mon ground. To give this table a sectarian character, or to 
make it an occasion of strife, is confessedly, a very serious 
matter. These are evils to he avoided if possible ; and, there- 
fore, we must have the most satisfactory proof \\xbX we are 
acting in obedience to the commands of Christ, before we can 
lawfully embrace any principle manifestly tending to such 
results. Such proof I have not yet seen in favor of immer- 
sion. The evidence thus far preponderates on the opposite 
side. 

Teacher. We have the advantage of Immersers in this 
argument. They embrace an exclusive principle, on the 
ground that immersion is the only baptism. The burden 
of proof, therefore, is with them. They must prove con- 
clusively that it is the only baptism. If there remains any 
room for doubting the conclusiveness of their argument, 
it wholly fails ; for who can believe for a moment that he is 
bound to separate from his Christian brethren, to make the 



44 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 



Lord's table sectarian, and to countenance schisms, so long 
as there exists a reasonable doubt ichether the Lord requires him 
to do it ? 

Inquirer. True — very true. But I would inquire whe- 
ther the cases of Christian baptism in the New Testament 
are not clearly in favor of immersion 1 j 




c)KtU|v cund tae ©imac^. 



CHAPTER V, 

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM BAPTISM ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST. 

Teacher. I see that you very properly make a distinction 
between John's baptism and Christian baptism. But not to 
detain the subject, what example of apostolic baptism shall 
we first examine 1 

Inquirer. If you please, the baptisms of the day of Pen- 
tecost. 

Teacher. Please read the account, (Acts ii.) and point 
out to me the proof ihaX the converts were immersed. It is 
not found in any tendency of the apostles that way, for thei/ 
had been educated to regard sprinkling as sufficient for cere- 
monial purification, and from early childhood had seen the 
leper, and the Levites, and indeed the vessels of the temple 
cleansed by sprinkling-. Why should men so educated have 
deemed sprinkling or pouring an improper symbol of purifica- 
tion by the Spirit, under the gospel, especially when they 
could not have failed to notice that their scriptures uniformly 
described his influence as poured out upon men 7 

Inquirer. If the influence of their Jewish education was 
not counteracted by some command of Christ, they baptized 
unquestionably by pouring or sprinkling. And that any such 
command was given to them, by the great Head of the Church, 
we are not obliged to believe without proof. 

Teacher. Do you find the proof that is needed in the 
Pentecostal baptisms ? 

Inquirer. I admit that I see nothing which decides in 



46 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

favor of immersion. The inspired record merely states that 
the converts were baptized : but it gives no intimation that 
they left the place where they were assembled ; nor that 
those preparations were made, which the immersion of a 
promiscuous multitude, consisting of males and females j 
always renders necessary. 

Teacher. This is a most decisive case, my friend, against 
immersion. On that memorable occasion, in the same day, 
(Acts ii. 41,) about 3000 persons were baptized and added to 
the church. Among the converts were Parthians and Medes, 
and Egyptians, &c. (vs. 9 — 11.) The assumption that they 
were immersed is not only a pure guess, but it hangs hy a 
string of most absurd guesses ' 

Consider the facts. The 30oO must have been baptized in 
Jerusalem, or in some other place. 

If we suppose that they were baptized in Jerusalem, (the 
only supposition which the record warrants,) mountain- 
ous difficulties lie in the way of the Immersers' guess 
These events took place during the Pentecost, or about the 
latter part of the month of May, in Palestine a time of 
drought. In that country, from the middle of April to the 
middle of September, it neither rains nor thunders. In the 
beginning of harvest, a cloud is occasionally seen in the morn- 
ing but it vanishes away ; and hence the beautiful allusion of 
Hosea, where he compares the goodness of Ephraim to the 
morning cloud. (Hosea vi. 4.) Now the brook Cedron was 
dry, except in the raijiy part of the year ; and, therefore, at 
this time the footman might have walked across its channel 
with unwet sandal. The city afforded no other brooks or 
stream suited to the purposes of immersion. If there were 
baths, the Jews would sooner have opened them to swine, than 
to the followers of the hated Nazarene. Where then did the 
apostles find a convenient place in Jerusalem, to immerse in 
one day 3000 converts? This question presents a serious 
difficulty. But this is not the only difficulty. Suppose the 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 47 

apostles succeeded in obtaining a suitable place, how could 
they hare immersed 3000 in so short a time? When the 
wonders of that memorable day began to attract notice, it 
was already nine o'clock. If we make some little allowance 
for prayers, preaching, conversation with the candidates, con- 
fessions of faith, and for making the preparations which immer- 
sion, even on a much smaller scale, always demands, it must 
have been at least four o'clock, P. M., before they could have 
commenced baptizing. To be satisfied that this is not an ex- 
travagant calculation, we need only to ask ourselves, how 
many hours would be found necessary by Immersers in this 
city (where every convenience is near at hand,) for making 
decent preparations for the immersion of 3000 people, stran- 
gers foreigners, suddenly converted'? It would require 
miraculous despatch, to get through with all the essential 
preliminaries in less than half a day ! Now the apostles had 
250 persons each. If we suppose them to have continued 
immersing, without any cessation, and at the rate of one a 
minute, the day must have ended before their task was done ! 
But there is still another difficulty. As the converts were 
strangers, embracing both sexes, where did they get changes 
of apparel? Who provided them with immersing gowns'? 
Did they borrow them on the spot 1 Or if obliged to search 
Jerusalem, running hither and thither, for these conveniences, 
how much of the day did this consume? Or were they 
plunged all over in water without any change of raiment? 
Or did they expose their naked persons to one another, and 
to gazing spectators, and thus violate the natural sense of 
shame ? 

In view of these difficulties, what monstrous guesses are 
necessary on the part of Immersers ! They must, in the first 
place, guess that the apostles immersed the 3000 ; and in 
order to maintain this guess, they must guess that they found 
a convenient stream or brook in Jerusalem for immersing this 
immense multitude, when, from the known geography and 



1 



48 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

Climate of the country, it is evident that no such stream could 
have been found — or they must guess that they had access to 
baths, (when the very swine would sooner have gained ad- 
mittance,) and guess that there were baths enough to ac- 
commodate 3000. And when they have guessed out a 
suitable place for immersion, they must guess that the apostles 
immersed 250 persons each, in a few hours, giving them at 
the same time all needful instruction — and guess that they 
changed their apparel in the open air, men and women ; or 
guess that they were accommodated with dressing chambers ; 
or guess that they stripped themselves, and exposed their 
naked persons ivhile going doivn to the water and coming 
from it; — or guess that they were plunged just as they were, 
and went about after the ceremony with their garments cleav- 
ing to their skin, and dripping upon the pavement of the city ! 

But suppose they were baptized in some other place. Ob- 
serve, this is itself a guess. The inspired narrative gives no 
hint of their leaving the city, or even the place ivhere they loere 
assembled. Such an army of converts leaving the city, is a 
circumstance which the historian could not have failed to 
notice. But what is gained by this guess? The nearest 
river (the Jordan) was distant more than 20 miles. As it 
was not a day of omnibuses and railroads, how could that 
promiscuous host have reached the river in time for the cere- 
mony 1 In whatever place we suppose the immersing to have 
been performed, we have the same guessing as to a change 
of apparel, &c. &c. And the farther we remove it from the 
city, and from the scene of the apostles' preaching, the greater 
the difficulty in regard to time. 

Inquirer. I must confess that I am not prepared to em- 
brace a supposition which hangs by such a string of guesses ; 
and much less to consider others, who find it impossible to 
guess quite so much where the Scriptures give no favorable 
data, as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and as 
worthy of banishment from the Lord's table. 



HINTS- TO AN INQUIRER. 49 

Teacher. And yet, on this shadowy basis, Immersers claim 
the exclusive right to that table ! One of their ministers in 
this city, concluded a series of discourses, which he has re- 
cently been preaching on immersion, in the following strain : 
— " I have a right to go to any evangelical church [meaning 
other than immersing churches] where the Lord's table is 
spread, and partake of the symbols, and no man may lawfully 
forbid me ; — nay more ; I have a right to say to the commu- 
nicants, you are intruders here ; — nay, more than this, I have 
a right to say to that minister who officiates at the table, 
Stand aside, — thou hast no right to administer this ordi- 
nance !" Such a peroration excites only our pity. 
5 



\ 



CH APTE R VI. 

BAPTISM OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH — OF THE PHILIPPIAN | 
JAILER OF SAUL OF CORNELIUS. 

Inquirer. Previous to this examination, I have attached 
much importance to the case of the baptism of the Ethiopian 
eunuch. 

Teacher. Please turn to that case, (Acts viii. 36,) and 
point out whdiX you have considered as determining with cer- 
tainty tliat he was immersed. 

Inquirer. I find that this case wears a new aspect ; for I 
really can find nothing in it, except that it is said that both 
Philip and the eunuch went into the water. 

Teacher. It may be well still to examine this point a little. 
Mark this, that the phrase " went down," &c., does not de- 
note the baptismal act. They went down, both Phihp and 
the eunuch, but both were not baptized. So that the going 
down was only a preparatory act, and the coming up out of 
the water was something done after the baptism, and not the 
baptism itself. This is what they would have done, whether 
they baptized by affusion or immersion. 

You must take into view the circumstances and customs of 
the country. It is well known that Orientals were accustomed 
to step into the water on all occasions, whether of washing, 
or taking up water in their hands to drink, or the like. Their 
dress about their feet was such as not to hinder the custom, 
and their warm climate made it pleasant. As they were 
moving on in a journey, they came to " some water" [for 
that is the literal rendering.] For baptism they must go to 
the water ; as that could be done more conveniently than water 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 51 

could be brought to them. It was also natural and agreea- 
ble to the habits of the people. Now the question is, whether 
their doing- what they naturally would do to baptize by pour- 
ing, proves that they baptized another way, and by immersion ? 
If there were no occasion for stepping into the water, except 
the convenience of immersion, there would be some force in 
the Immersers' inference. But when there was an actual 
necessity for going into the water, in order to baptize in any 
way, their going into it can be no proof that they baptized by 
immersion. 

We have an actual occurrence, which capitally illustrates 
this point. A Methodist minister and an Immerser, a few 
weeks since, in Charlestown, were baptizing at the same time 
and place, by the water's side. The Immerser took his can- 
didate, and while going down, said, "And they went down 
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch" — and after im- 
mersing him, he came out, saying by the way, "And they 
came up out of the water." Some of the spectators doubtless 
listened thus far, as to oracular proof of the necessity of im- 
mersion. Next the Methodist minister took his candidate, 
and went down into the water, repeating the same words — "And 
they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch," 
and then took water and poured it upon his candidate, (ac- 
cording to the frequent practice of that sect,) and came up 
repeating — ^''And they came up out of the water, both Philip 
and the eunuch.^^ So it was seen that the words of Scripture 
were as pertinent to one case as the other, and that one may 
do all that Philip is said to have done, without immersing. 

As the Immersers' argument rests so much on the fancied 
import of the words " into" and " out of," it may be proper 
here to introduce the testimony of Prof. Ripley, of the New- 
ton Theological Seminary. In his note on Matt. iii. 16, he 
says: — "Om^ of the water — The preposition here translated 
" OM^ o/," has the more general signification of the word/rom; 
and would be suitable, whether the sacred writer meant to 



53 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

say that Jesus came out from the water, i. e. from within the 
river to the shore ; or, that he came from the water, i. e. 
retired from the bank of the river to another place. This 
preposition, then, in itself furnishes no decision in respect to 
the manner of the ordinance." Here is an Immerser's conces- 
sion, that the preposition fixes nothing. But the verb [ave/S«, 
" went up"] does of itself settle the question. If immersion 
had been the way, that verb should have had the force of 
emerge. But it is incapable of such a meaning ; and we chal- 
lenge any one, out of the numerous instances of its use, to find 
one where it has this meaning. 

Inquirer. It is one of the plainest cases, that it is impossi- 
ble to make it certain that the eunuch ivas immersed. 

Teacher. That is enough for our purpose. If the Bible 
has left the mode of applying water in uncertainty/, no man 
has a right to require me to act as though it were certain that 
immersion is the mode. No one is justified in shutting me 
from the Lord's table, because my guesses as to the mode will 
not run in the same line with his. But the probabilities are, in 
fact, against immersion in this case. They took the first water 
which they found. It was no river ; for if it was, the narra- 
tive would have said so. But it only says, they came to 
^'some water, ^^ [n vSoo^,] just as it would have said if it were 
the smallest quantity, and just as it would not have said if it 
were a river. Both geography and history show that it was 
not a river. Hierome, who lived several years at Jerusa- 
lem, and was well acquainted with the country, reports that 
about twenty miles from Jerusalem, in the road towards He- 
bron, there is a village called Bethsoron, near to which is a 
mountain, at the bottom or foot whereof is a spring, where the 
Acts of the Apostles relate that the Ethiopian was baptized by 
Philip. Eusebius reported the same. Beda, some hundred 
years afterwards, reported the said village then remaining, 
consenting with Eusebius and Hierome as to the baptism of 
the eunuch in the spring. A modern traveller, Sandys, men- 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 53 

tions this passage by Bethsoron, where he says — " We saw 
the fountain whose pleasant waters are forthwith drunk up by 
the earth that produced them. There they say Philip bap- 
tized the eunuch ; whereupon it retains the name of the Ethi- 
opian fountain." 

Now on which side are the probabilities 1 Geography, his- 
tory, tradition and the inspired narrative are silent as to any 
river existing where they were. But that there was this 
spring, or fountain, standing alone in a dry and desert land, we 
have this positive evidence. In view of all the facts of the 
case, see how much the Immerser has to rely on guesses for 
the substance of his argument from this case, so much quoted 
by him. He guesses that Philip immersed the eunuch ; and 
to support this guess, he must guess again that there was a 
river where we know there was none. Then he must guess 
that the eunuch exposed his nakedness to Philip, and Philip 
exposed his nakedness to the eunuch — or he must guess that 
Philip, travelling on foot, had come provided with a change 
of garments, contrary to Christ's advice to his first missiona- 
ries, not to take two coats apiece — or he must guess that 
Philip went in for immersing with his only dress on. 

Inquirer. It seems clear, that either of these assumptions 
is a guess against probability. Besides, Philip was caught 
away ^ immediately^'' after the baptism; and it is not likely 
that he was caught away either naked or dripping wet, and 
set down in the streets of the city of Azotus ; whence, we 
read, he went forth preaching the gospel. It is manifestly 
unjust to exclude one from the Lord's table because he cannot 
join in such a guess. But as this is an important case, can 
we not gather light from some other Scripture, which may 
indicate that Philip did or did not practise immersion 1 

Teacher. Yes. The very passage which the eunuch was 
reading, Isa. lii. 15, says — "He shall 5p'm^/e many nations."* 

* The Hebrew word, yazza, translated shall sprinkle, occurs in sev- 
eral otlier passages, in which it can mean nothing else than sprinkle. 

5*^ 



54 HINTS TO AN INQUIRE^. 

The eunuch was one of these many nations. This probably 
suggested a conversation on baptism, and led to his request to 

For instance, Exodus xxix. 21 : "And thou shalt take of the blood 
that is upon the aUar and of the anointing oil and sprir.kle it upon 
Aaron," &c. Lev. iv. 6 : " And the priest shall dip his finger in the 
hlood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times," Lev. v. 9 : "And he 
shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering upon the side of the 
altar." Lev. xiv. 7 : " And he shall sprinkle upon him that is cleansed 
from the leprosy seven times." Indeed, aside from the Septuagint 
itself, we can get from no source any shadow of a warrant for trans- 
lating it as the Septuagint has done. Michaelis gives the word m 
this passage the sense of sprinkle, and thus renders the phrase in 
Latin — " Sic adsperget gentes multas et validas." 

The Rev. Dr. Jenks has favored us with the following note from 
Vitringa : 

" Isa. lii. 15 : 'So shall he sprinkle many nations.' This is a counter- 
part to the former clause, and exhibits the glorious state of the Messiah, 
as opposed to his humiliation. The Jews themselves confess and teach 
that the prophet here declares : ' As his degradation, or wretchedness 
and suffering, was in an extreme degree ; in an equally extreme de- 
gree will be his exaltation ;' forming thus a com.parison between the 
two conditions, 

"The Hebrew word here used has uniformly the meaning, m Scrip- 
ture, of sprinkling. The idea is purely evangelical, to be alone explained 
by the mystery of the gospel, and economy of the kingdom of Jesus 
Christ, in this place of most easy and appropriate interpretation: 
which, tha , it should not be understood by the Jews,* who study with a 

" a In a note, Vitringa reviews the opinions of Grotius, L'Empereur, A bar- 
banel and Alex. More, chiefly following the Septuagint, and giving the idea of 
' affecting the nations with wonder,' or of ' scattering them,' and adds : ' As to 
the first opinion, is it probable ? Why is darkness coveted, in the midst of light ? 
As to the second, I say, that the version is absurd, whether you look at the idea, 
or the fact. The idea is uniformly given of a liquid (water or blood) with 
which a thing or person is sprinkled. Has this anything in common with the 
dispersion of enemies conquered in battle? As to the fact : did Jesus Christ 
disperse the nations he came to save ? Did he not rather collect them V Abar' 
banel is then quoted as referring to Isa. Ixiii. 3, to sustain his opinion, and 
Kimchi, the father and son, explaining the passage in the sense of distilling, 
ascribed to language, thus of indoctrinating. [As Moses, 'my speech shall 
distil as the dew.'] Then he subjoins, ' Reader, lament with me, that the pure 
and chaste word of God should be exposed so much to the sport of human im- 
agination, obscuring its glory and power: not indeed always because of igno- 



i 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 55 

be baptized. Having; learned that Christ was to sprinkle 
many nations, he would not have been willing to be immersed, 

diversified but fruitless effort to twist its meaning into something else, 
I do not wonder; but that Christian interpreters, and those who love 
the gospel, when they distinctly see that nothing can now be spoken 
more truly of Christ, nor more in agreement with his discipline, 
should yet assign other senses to the passage, I greatly wonder. Is 
it that we deny Isaiah to have been so perfectly illuminated by the 
Spirit, as to have fully unveiled the whole mystery of the gospel ? 
God forbid ! The next sentence will teach us, that he saw all that 
the history declares befel Christ Jesus, however paradoxical the 
events were. The sense of this passage is clear, plain, certain ; that 
Christ Jesus will apply the virtue of the blood shed by him, as the 
Great High Priest of the house of God, to the purification of the con- 
sciences of many and great nations, and to their illumination and sanc- 
tification ; and that he will afford them the justification obtained for 
them by his obedience unto blood, as he interprets his meaning after- 
wards, in ch. Iviii. 11 ; but that these nations who believe in him 
shall receive the sign of this benefit, and profess their faith in baptism, 
to be instituted by the command of Jesus Christ, and to be adminis- 
tered by his apostles and servants — this baptism sealing to those who 
profess Christ, the same which was formerly signified by the vari- 
ous purifications, under the ancient economy, made by washing" or 
sprinkling-, for these modes are equivalent each to the other. So in 
Ezekiel, ch. xxxvi. 26 : ' And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, 
and ye shall be clean.' But Peter, in his first epistle, ch. i. 2, and the 
apostle to the Hebrews, x. 22, xii. 24, use the very word sprinkle, and 
the phrase, sprinkling of the blood of Christ, which is the idea in 
Isaiah. For the word here rendered sprinkle, and which is used in 
Levit. iv. 6, and in Num. viii. 7, refers chiefly to the act of a high 
priest, who sprinkles upon the people the blood of a victim offered for 
them, in order to purify them : since to sprinkle anything with blood 
is to apply its virtue for purification. Compare Eph. v. 26, with 
Tit. ii. 14. Thus the glorifying of Jesus Christ among the Gen- 
tiles, given to him for an inheritance, was to begin. The justifi- 

rance, for this might plead an excuse, after diligent efforts had been made ; but 
because of prejudices arising from incredulity, or the wavering and unstable 
judgment of the multitude. It is water, here, which creates a difficulty with 
Jewish expositors, as they cannot make the sprinkling of it agree with any of 
their hypotheses. But why do Christians avoid the light that here shines ! ' 



56 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

but would choose to follow the way of Christ, as foretold by- 
Isaiah. We are well aware that Immersers, in their natural 
anxiety to evade the point of this argument, find fault with 
our translators for following the original Hebrew in this place, 
and not preferring the translation of the Seventy. But that 
evasion is insufficient. 

Inquirer. Your argument, if 1 understand it, does not 
depend on that allusion, while, if that allusion be indeed a 
prophecy of baptism, it brings decisive confirmation to it. 

Teacher. We will turn now to the baptism of the Philip- 
pian jailer. Acts xvi. 33. Where did it take place? Not in 
his own house — for we are told, that after the transaction he 
brought Paul and Silas into his house. If we follow the 
record, we find that it took place in the prison — where to sup- 
pose there was a bath, or other convenience for immersion, 
were against all probability. The narrative favors the suppo- 
sition that the washing of the stripes and the baptism were 
done at the same place, and by water procured by similar 
means. And we shall not be condemned at the day of judg- 
ment, if we are shut out from the Lord's table for not being 
able to guess that there was a bath in that prison, or to guess 
that they resorted to it, when the record hints nothing of the 
kind. If we suppose that the jailer was baptized with a por- 
tion of the same water brought to wash the stripes, we have 
only one supposition, and that natural, simple, and favored by 
the narrative. But they who contend that he was immersed, 
must first guess that he was ; and then prop up that guess by 
guessing again that there was a bath in prison, a luxury not 
usually granted to prisoners, especially by unmerciful pagans. 
And then they must guess that they left the inner prison and 

cation obtained by the Messiah was to be furnished and appHed to them, 
for illumination, purification, righteousness, and life. 

ViTRiNGA, in loco. 

" It were well, perhaps, to ask, if the word * sprinkle,' in this passage, 
had been ' immerse,' whether its authority would not have been final, 
in settling the mode. W. J.'^ 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 57 

resorted to it — or they must guess that the jailer and his whole 
family, and Paul and Silas reeking with their wounds, went 
out at midnight to some river, expressly against the orders of 
the magistrate to the jailer to keep them safely. Now those 
who prefer to hang on such a string of guesses, may do it ; 
but let them banish none from the Lord's table for not taking 
their guesses for holy writ. 

Inquirer. I suppose you would dispose of the case of the 
baptism of Saul much in the same way. 

Teacher. Not a circumstance in that case favors immer- 
sion, hut everything looks the other way, and shoivs that he re- 
ceived such a baptism as he might receive in the room where he 
ivas. He was sick and weak. And all that is told us is, that 
while confined to his room, blind, faint, and fasting, Ananias 
on entering the house said to him — " Brother Saul, the Lord, 
even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, 
hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled 
with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his 
eyes as it had been scales, and he received sight forthwith, 
and arose and was baptized." Now we have here one entire 
scene. The coming in of Ananias — the salutation — the re- 
moving of the blindness — his rising from his couch of sickness, 
and his baptism, are all one scene, occurring in the same time 
and place. These small particulars are given, and it is in- 
credible that a circumstance so important as going out or car- 
rying out a sick man for immersion is omitted. Lideed, where 
the Bible intimates no such thing, we have no right to say 
that they went out. 

But to maintain his position, the Lnmerser must guess that 
there was a river or a bath near at hand — guess that a sick 
man rose from his couch, after eating or drinking nothing for 
three days, and was yet able to bear the fatigue of walking 
the distance to and fro, and the exposure of the immersion. 
And do such guesses come near enough to certainty to justify 
the pernicious consequences of the close communion principle ! 



58 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

The next case is that of Cornelius, Acts x. Here is an 
entire absence of any intimation of immersion. Peter says^ 
" Can any man forbid water, that these should not be bap- 
tized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" 
He does not ask — Can any man forbid us going to the river 1 
but, can any one forbid water, to be brought and applied to 
their baptism on the spot 1 In his rehearsal of the affair to his 
brethren afterwards, he told them that as he began to preach, 
the Holy Ghost fell on [mark the expression] the Gentiles as 
on the Jews at the beginning. This called to mind, he says, 
the w^ord of the Lord, how that he said — John indeed baptized 
with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 
Here you see that the pouring- out and the falling on of the 
Holy Ghost is called baptism, and reminded Peter of baptism. 
And Peter, being thus reminded of the Lord^s baptism, would 
not go right away and baptize in a different way. And then 
he baptized ^^ with water'''' [w^TaT/, the dative of the instrument 
without a preposition] and not in the water. From an exam- 
ination of the case, all the probabilities are against immersion. 
That there w^as immersion here, is a guess without a shadow 
of a foundation. 

We have now examined all the passages which have any 
material bearing on the question. And we will here make 
two general remarks. (1.) The apostles were wont to baptize 
on the spot where the occasion for baptizing occurred. If 
they were in prison, they baptized in prison ; if on a journey, 
they used the water by the way-side ; if in a sick-room, they 
baptized there. And we never read of their going out to find 
a convenient place for immersing — a very singular fact if they 
always immersed. And neither do we ever read of a change 
of garments in baptizing. (2.) Those baptized were said to 
have been baptized not in but with water. The water is made 
the instrument with which, and not the element in which, 
they were baptized. 

We will next state a few objections to immersion : 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 59 

1. It does not so well agree with the main design and im- 
port of baptism — i. e. purifying by an influence poured out. 

2. It does not harmonize with the simplicity of the Gospel. 

3. It cannot be administered in all times and places where 
baptism is desirable. 

4. It is often cumbrous and inconvenient. 

5. It favors the Popish conceit of the efficacy of penance, 
in that it lays stress on overcoming the natural repugnance to 
such a mode, in the idea that in it consists the taking up of 
the cross. 

6. It is indelicate. We are aware that the mention of this 
objection is taken with offence. Yet it is one which ought to 
he urged, and will have influence with serious and unbiassed 
minds. It violates a natural and healthful sense of propriety, 
for females to expose themselves in water, with and before 
the other sex. Though modesty forbids the statement of this 
objection in all its force, it is enough to say, that the sacrifice 
of female modesty, in a religious rite, is an offering not re- 
quired at our hands. 

These reasons, since immersion is not commanded^ would 
of themselves lead us to seek some other mode. 



CH APTE R VII. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

The suggestion which is frequently made, that one had 
better be immersed at any rate, ^^ for then he will he sure to 
be right, ^' deserves some notice. 

If by being right is meant the following of the scriptural 
mode, one by being immersed ivill be sure to be lorong. But 
the main objection to that suggestion is that it assumes that 
the question is only about the quantity of water needful to be 
applied ; whereas the doctrine of the Immersers involves a 
principle, which sunders the union of the church, and divides 
the house of God against itself. It is not with you simply 
the question whether more or less water shall be used in your 
baptism. But if you are immersed, you must adopt Immer- 
sers'' principles, to wit, that immersion only is baptism, and 
deny the baptism of all not immersed, and exclude them from 
the Lord's table. You must pronounce the act of your bap- 
tism in infancy a solemn farce, and trample on that covenant, 
which perhaps has been the cord of love, to bring you to 
Christ. Or, if you have not been baptized, and in that case 
prefer immersion, the inference is that you do it from prin- 
ciple, since that is not the mode which convenience suggests. 
And the principle on which you prefer it, is understood to be 
that another mode is not baptism. So that when you consent 
to be immersed, it is understood, unless some circumstances 
indicate the contrary, that you put your hand and seal to the 
avowal, that all churches, but those of Immersers, are walk- 
ing disorderly, making an unauthorized use of Christian ordi- 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 61 

nances, and are virtually intruding, with unhallowed feet, 
where Korah, Dathan, and Abiram went. 

And you would not only unchurch a majority of the people 
of God, but you loould unchurch yourself and your immersing 
brethren. For if immersion only is baptism, then the Im- 
mersers of this country have taken their baptism from the 
unbaptized ! The first person immersed here was Roger 
Williams. He was originally a Pedobaptist, and was im- 
mersed by a layman, Ezekiel Holyman, and then he immersed 
Mr. Holyman, and the rest of his church. Most of the im- 
mersions which have since taken place in this country, trace 
their pedigree to these cases. But Mr. Williams soon made 
the discovery that he had unchurched himself, and frankly 
confessed to his church that he had misled them — and was 
not competent to administer baptism. And now what did 
he do 1 Did he go to one who had been baptized by immer- 
sion in a true line of apostolical succession? Alas, he knew 
of none such in the world ! Learned man as he was, he 
could not find such a lineage of Immersers, though less 
learned men in later times pretend to find them ! He was 
driven, by his views of consistency to his immersing principles, 
to declare that Christian ordinances had been lost, and there 
was no church in the world, and could not be, till other 
apostles should come, with miraculous powers. For the 
rest of his life, therefore, he separated from all churches. 
Disguise it as you may, this is the necessary result of the 
close communion immersing principle. So that, so far from 
being sure of being right, in adopting this principle, you are 
sure to be wrong ; and avow a principle which makes all 
Christians wrong, and all churches no churches. 

Close communion and immersion, as usually held, are one 
and the same principle. And the consent to be immersed, 
takes a fearful sweep. It by necessary consequence makes 
one an assailant of the peace and unity of the church. It 
compels him to deny the validity of the baptism of most pro • 
6 



62 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

fessing Christians, and to bring his own into serious question. 
It involves the necessity of holding that all Pedobaptist 
churches are no churches, and their ministers no ministers ; 
and yet under such circumstances as compel most Immersers 
to waver in that denial. It compels one to take the ground 
that most of the Lord's children have no right to the Lord's 
table — that most of those who have spiritual communion 
with Christ, may not have sacramental communion with him 
— that most of those w^ho feed on Christ, may not feed on the 
appointed emblems of him — that most of those destined to sit 
at the marriage-supper of the Lamb, must be driven from the 
sacramental supper. 

If you become an Immerser, you also take up a principle 
that icars against Christian love. The Immerser claims credit 
for consistency to his principles, in proportion as he drives the 
war of extermination against all other sects, which in his 
esteem are no churches of Christ. Though few Immers- 
ers fully act out their principles in this particular, tliis prin- 
ciple has given their sect a character, which is generally 
allowed to be, above all others, given to proselytism. The 
most odious forms and measures of proselyting have their 
justification in the close communion principle, which makes 
all other churches no churches. If one pronounces all Pedo- 
baptists aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers 
to the covenants of promise — unbaptized , unfit to come to the 
Lord's table — if one feels prompted to use measures of prose- 
lyting, from which most others would shrink, to build his sect 
on the ruins of others — if he more than insinuates, where he 
may do it successfally, that one must be immersed or be 
damned, and thus carries his point by overmastering the fears 
of the weak and confiding — if one feels bound to do what 
Balaam dared not do, and pronounce accursed whom God 
has not cursed, he retreats behind his principle of immer- 
sion. Consistency to that requires it all. But that must 
be a pernicious principle, that engenders such pernicious 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 63 

consequences, Is one so sure of being right if he adopts 
it? 

Then what practical advantage does this principle offer, to 
compensate for all its evil. Does it give us better hopes of 
heaven 1 Does it lead to the formation of better Christian 
character? Does it foster a higher spirit of obedience? 
These are questions touching matters of fact, which each one 
can answer for himself. Were we to test the matter by- 
reference to the cause of Foreign Missions, we might, in one 
particular, get tangible results. The Immersers claim to be 
the largest denomination in the United States ; of course it 
must be larger than that of the Congregationalists, together 
with that portion of the Presbyterians which sustain the 
American Board of Missions. Yet how do the two boards 
compare? The Immersers' board raises and expends but 
about one fifth as much annually, as does that of the " un- 
baptized " Congregationalists and Presbyterians. If the spirit 
of benevolence is any test of principle, we see in this partic- 
ular no advantage from immersion. 

Or does immersion show its superior advantages, in its 
influence on civil society t We take you to Rhode Island, a 
community whose infancy was cradled by the immersing prin- 
ciple. Its institutions and the early formation of its character 
were about as much affected by that principle, as the institu- 
tions and character of Massachusetts and Connecticut were 
affected by the contrary principle. And, to say the least, 
r.o powerful persuasive to immersion comes from Rhode 
Island. 

But it is said, that Immersers have been prosperous and suc- 
cessful ; and this is drawn into an argument in defence of their 
principle. What desirable prosperity they have had, however, 
may be more owing to the cardinal principles of the gospel 
in their hands than to their use of this party-shibboleth. 
Yet success in building up a sect is a doubtful test of the dis- 
tinctive principles of that sect. For Papists and Mormons 



64 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

might use such an argument to good effect. All other things 
being equal, success in building a sect, should be in some 
proportion to exertions made; and if the exertions of Im- 
mersers to enlist recruits from other sects, outstrip those of 
all others, should not their success be in some proportion to 
their efforts 1 

They have also had special advantage for gathering the 
lambs from Pedobaptist flocks. A public sentiment has 
greatly prevailed among Congregationalists against publicly 
discussing the Immersers' errors ; and indeed against all 
efforts, even for self-defence, against proselytism. A large 
class among us are ready to frown upon all efforts of the 
kind. Their disgust at the proselytism of the Immersers, has 
made them over-scrupulous, lest we should imbibe their 
spirit, in attempting a defence against them. This has in a 
great measure paralyzed efforts on our part, and given Immers- 
ers an advantage which they have not been slow to use. 
But Immersers have no clogs of this sort. Who ever heard 
of an Immerser reproved by Immersers for defending the 
principles of his sect — or even for furious onsets on other 
sects ? 

This difference leads to another. By this state of things it 
has come about that most Immersing ministers, however 
deficient in other particulars, have concentrated their main 
strength on the subject of baptism ; and so have their argu- 
ment at their tongue's end, and (what is more important) 
are familiar with all the little tactics of proselytism. But 
Pedobaptist ministers, taught to feel that they have less use 
for thorough knowledge on this subject, are in a way to cul- 
tivate that knowledge less. It is felt to be more important to 
preach 50 as to convert sinners, than to preach so as to pre- 
vent their running into Anabaptism. And because they have 
thus felt and acted, Immersers have seized on the fact, as an 
occasion to represent that Pedobaptists, generally, do not 
understand the subject ; and have not examined it — and do so 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 65 

and so merely because their fathers did : and whatever show 
of truth they are able to throw around this representation, is 
very useful to their sinister purpose. Hence, too, it is often, 
and with great confidence asserted, among Immersers, that 
Pedobaptist ministers are not sincere in their belief. There 
is, indeed, good reason for believing that the more general 
idea of Immersers, as to us, is, that we practise Pedobap- 
tism, and refuse immersion, against the convictions of our 
judgment and conscience. This persuasion, so potent for 
popular effect, has originated partly, perhaps, from the 
proselyting industry of the others, and partly from our com- 
parative indifference as to defending our principles. Our fear 
to err on the side of proselytism, has been construed into a 
disbelief of our principles, and an impression, highly mis- 
chievous, has been produced. Our ministers have been made 
to feel that it is next to a sin to resist aggressive efforts, and 
show any zeal in attachment to our distinctive principles. 
Some of our v/riters on the subject, from a desire to show a 
generous and liberal spirit, have made unwarrantable con- 
cessions. Preaching on the subject has been too much dis- 
couraged. In revivals of religion, ministers have given place 
to the grossest proselyting efforts, fearing to check the revi- 
val by restraining them. With all these advantages and 
exertions, the wonder is, that Immersers have not made more 
progress than they have. 

If our principles are worth defending, public sentiment 
among us should be so far correct as to allow of the labor 
of defence, and not to go into spasms at the occurrence of 
" CONTROVERSY " ou the subject. Our ministers, also, must 
make themselves familiar with the points of the argument, and 
the best modes of presenting them. It is not sufficient that 
they study the subject enough to satisfy their own minds. 
It is their duty to preserve their people from being seduced 
into a pernicious error ; and for this purpose they need to 
understand not only the truth, but also all the tactics by 
6# 



65 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 

which the truth is assailed. Disagreeable as the duty may 
be, he is an unfaithful servant who, in this day, shrinks 
from it. Private Christians, too, have duties in relation to 
this subject, the nature of which may be learned from the 
shape of the efforts put forth by many of the members of im- 
mersing- churches ; and, uncongenial as they are, these duties 
must be done, unless we are willing to suffer "the way of 
truth to be evil spoken of." 



THE BAPTISMAL QUESTION, 



REVIEW 



REV. MESSRS. COOKE AND TOWNEES 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER 



SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 



BY WILLIAM HAGUE, 

Pastor of the Federal St. Baptist Church, 



BOSTON : 
GOULD /KENDALL & LINCOLN, 

5 9 Wa shington" Street. 

1842. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



The pamphlet to which I have here furnished a Reply, was issued yester- 
day. Oil Saturday last, I first saw public notice given of the republication 
in this form of some numbers from the columns of the " Puritan." Of those 
numbers I had heard, but had not read them. A friend sent them to me ; I 
read them on that day, and have this week prepared an answer. I mention 
this to show the reason of my noticing only one of the two authors, whose 
names are on the pamphlet before me. It having been announced that the 
Rev. Mr. Towne was the sole author, I wrote under that impression. I have 
chosen to refer to him alone moreover, because I should not have noticed the 
book at all, had I not learned that it was from the pen of one of our city 
pastors 5 and as the matter now stands before the public, he is as responsible 
for one part of the production as the other. 



BuLFiNCH Street, 
Thursday, May 20, 1842. 



REVIEW. 



There is one feature of this pamphlet which will certainly 
be pleasing to every reader; that is, the tone of sincerity 
which animates it. The author writes like one who not only 
feels an interest in his subject, but also a conviction of the 
truth of his own statements. He takes a clear and decided 
position, and risks his whole cause upon a single issue. This 
we like. It is coming to the point. It exhibits the manliness 
inspired by sincere belief. It is true, here and there, we are 
forced to pause, and ask, "Is it possible for an intelligent 
Christian and scholar to believe this?" Yet the language and 
spirit of the whole production set the question aside, and lead 
lis to the conclusion that he has written from his heart as well 
as his intellect; that he "believes, and therefore speaks." 

It is not for the sake of paying a compliment, that we make 
this remark, but because we are really pleased when com- 
mencing a discussion, to feel that we have to do with a sin- 
cere man. It is not always so. In reading controversial wri- 
tings, one's feelings are often ruffled by the impression con- 
stantly recurring, that this or that is said merely for effect, and 
rather from the spirit of "partiality and hypocrisy," than a 
deep conviction of its justness. We are aware that a man 
may be sincere in defending error as well as truth ; and that 
when through inadvertence, or prejudice of education, or want 
of sufficient knowledge, he has adopted one wrong principle, 
it may lead him into a thousand absin'dities, yet it smooths the 
path of controversy, to believe that you have an honest oppo- 
nent. Frail as Mr. Towne's argument really is, untenable as 
his position appears to be when sound philology pours its light 
around it, he undoubtedly thinks it strong; and if he venture 
forth into this field of discussion with a bolder step and an air 
of greater confidence than many of his predecessors, it is be- 
cause he sees less clearly than they, the difficulties which are 
before him, and the perils which beset his path. A man's 
confidence that he is right, sometimes arises from the limita- 
tion of his views. 

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that this exhibition of a 
sincerity of belief, is blended with a strong glow of denom- 
inational antipathy. This appears at the outset, in refusing to 
apply to the Baptists the name by which they are usually 
designated. The reason assigned for this is, that it would im- 
1* 



6 

ply a concession that they alone properly baptize. Hence, he 
insists on calling them "Immersers." Now this denotes a 
morbid state of mind, which would be very likely to bias his 
judgment, and unfit him for an impartial investigation. He 
who cannot give to a denomination of Christians the name by 
which they have been long known in a community and among 
different nations, is ill prepared to do justicis to their cause. 
If such a mode of attack were followed out, the mouths of dif- 
ferent sects would be filled with contemptuous epithets. With 
equal reason, the Baptists might say, we will not call the Con- 
gregationalists by the name which they have assumed, for we 
also are Congregationalists; and to do so, would imply a con- 
cession that they have an exclusive right to the name. With 
the same reason we might say it of the Independents in Eng- 
land; as if yielding the name, implied that all other churches 
were in a state of subjection to a hierarchy. Just so too we 
might refuse to speak of the Episcopalians by their usual de- 
signation, on the ground that it involved a concession that they 
alone have bishops; and believing that in the scriptural sense, 
we have bishops as well as they, we might insist on calling them 
Diocesans. But what would be the consequence of all this? 
Nothing but strife, bitterness and mutual disrespect. Let us 
have nothing to do with such childish bickering. The apostle 
Peter places the practice of courtesy in the list of Christian 
duties; and if we have aught of his spirit, we will yield to 
each denomination the name by which it is usually known, 
and beware how we " strive about words to no profit." 

With Mr. Towne's "preliminary thoughts," we think the 
Baptists will cordially agree. He says, "a divine simplicity 
characterizes the New Testament institutions, and it is con- 
trary to the genius of the gospel to lay great stress on out- 
ward rites. It rather invites the main solicitudes upon ordering 
the heart and life." In such a sentiment, it might be ex- 
pected that the Baptists would heartily accord, since they 
have long been distinguished for maintaining the spirituality 
of the Christian religion, and showing that none have a right 
to baptism at all, until they have repented of sin, and yielded 
their hearts to God. For this they have been persecuted for 
ages past in Europe. In the reign of Henry VJII., as Bishop 
Burnet tells us, a national creed was issued, approved by "the 
whole clergy of the realm," declaring that "infants must needs 
be christened, because they be born in original sin, which can- 
not be remitted without baptism, whereby they receive the 
Holy Ghost." The Baptists of that day could not assent to 
this, but defended the doctrine of infant salvation in all its 
breadth, and were exf)Osed to the censure of all the Pa3dobap- 
tists of England, for declaring that there is no difference " be- 
tween the infant of a Christian and a Turk," but that both 
might be saved without bajitism. 



Equally ready am I to assent to another preliminary remark, 
that the gospel does not "Jay stress on the mode of performing 
an external rite." I have never contended for any particular 
mode of baptism, bnt for the rite itself; for that which is essen- 
tial to its very nature ; for th^t whi^h the word used in th« 
commission of oiu* Lord positively enjoins. If sprinkling were 
a mode of baptism, I should never think of practising immer- 
sion. It wonld be a gross absurdity to do it, and a sin to urge 
it on the conscience of a Christian convert, if sprinkling a ^ev^ 
drops of water on the forehead, would really meet the demand 
of the word in the baptismal statute. If the word haptizo in 
the Greek Testament does not denote the act of immersion, or 
dipping, in distinction from other modes of applying a liquid, the 
foundation of the Baptist argument is not laid in solid rock, 
but on a shifting quicksand. I am ghid therefore tliat Mr. 
Towne has defined his position so clearly as he has done, in 
declaring that the word haptizo does not denote any particular 
use of water, but all i)ossible ways in which it can be applied; 
that in the New Testament it evidently means to sprinkle; 
€ind, (to quote his phrase with all the emphasis with which he 
has printed it,) "THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST 
GROUND TO SUPPOSE THAT ANY INSPIRED MIN- 
ISTER EVER BAPTIZED BY IMMERSION." Let him 
make this clear on the same principles on which we ascertain 
the meaning of other words in the English or any other lan- 
guage in the worW, and I pledge myself at once to abjure im- 
mersion forever, and to receive sprinkling at his hand. 

Meaning of the Word. 

It IS evident at a glance, that the turning point in this con- 
troversy is the meaning of the Greek word haptizo^ which 
stands in our Bibles with an English termination. The cir- 
cumstances connected with the administration of the rite, the 
places chosen, such as Jordan and Enon, the force of the 
Greek prepositions eis and ek, which express a descent into and 
a rising up OM? q/" the water as definitely as any prepositions 
in the Greek language can do it, are all strongly corrohorative 
of our position tiiat the act of baptism denoted by the term in 
Christ's commission, is properly and adequately translated into 
English by the word immersion which comes from the Latin, 
or by the word dipping of Anglo-Saxon origin. Nevertheless, 
if it can be clearly proved beforehand, that the active verb 
haptizo, the name of an action, is, when used with reference to 
water, so indeterminate as not to denote any particular kind of 
action, but rather all possible modes of use of which water is 
susceptible, from that of a single drop to an ocean, then it 
follows, — that however much of doubt the circumstances and 
prepositions might occasion to tender consciences, the baptis- 



8 

mal law from the lips of Christ, contained in the commission, 
presents a great variety of modes to the choice of the individ- 
ual, or leaves it, as tlie Pope of Rome would say, to be deter- 
mined by church aidhoritij. The common sense of mankind 
has always determined that the language of law should be 
definite; but this supposition attributes to the great Legislator 
of the church, language the most vague and indeterminate. 
The main question is, wiiether the word used by Christ, to en- 
join baptism, in the last exercise of his legislation on earth, in 
giving that commission which is binding "to the end of the 
world," denotes a specific act or not. If it does not, then 
there is no law which certainly holds us to immersion, or de- 
fines what act the Saviour meant, whether it were the appli- 
cation of water to the head or the feet, tlie face or the hands. 
If it does, then all objections drawn from supposed difficulties, 
or improbabilities, or from the greater convenience of sprink- 
ling, are no more to be regarded as argmnents, than tliose 
questions which skeptics sometimes ask in order to throw dis- 
credit on the very letter and spirit of revelation. 

Now this great question, " What sort of action does the word 
haptizo denote?" Mr. Towne approaches in a very curious way. 
It is worth while to mark it well, to see how sophistry may 
lead captive a confiding reader. He says, "All agree that bap- 
tism is water applied by a |)roper person to a proper person in 
the name of the Trinity. This nnich is fixed and settled." 
This broad, vague definition of baptism is very unscholar- 
Jike in a discussion where the meaning of the chief term is to 
be settled. Baptism is the name of some kind of action or 
other, and has nothing to do, in itself considered, with the 
character of the adtninistrator or the subject, the invocation of 
the Trinity, or any particular element, whether it be oil or 
wine, or blood or water. After the meaning of the term is 
settled, then if the question should arise, what is involved in 
the performance of the Christian institute of baptism, the above 
quotation would be a just reply. What would be thouglit of 
the philology of a Jew, if he were asked, what is the meaning 
of the word sprinkle, and he should reply, it denotes the stri- 
king of the blood of a lamb, tipon the door posts of a house 
by a proper person at a proper time, to commemorate a great 
deliverance? This would be a queer defitiition of a word 
which is the name of an action, but would do very well as an 
answer to another question, namely, "what is involved in 
God's ordinance of passover spriidiliug?" Yet Mr. T. goes on 
to say, "You will settle it therefore whether immersion alone, 
is baptism at all. If I fall from a ship's side and am thoroughly 
immersed — is that baptism ? No. Or if men immerse me by 
force — is that baptism? No. Or if 1 am immersed by my 
own consent, but not in the name of the Trinity — is that bap- 
tism ? No. Well then, neither immersion, nor tl»e use of 



9 

water in any way Is baptism ; WHICH IS SOMETHING 

MORE." p. 6. Now what absurdity is here ! Why, if baptism 
be immersing, and especially if it be any application of water, 
then ail this is baptism, though not Christ's ordinance of baptism. 
In the very same cha[)ter he speaks of the pharisaic washings 
of hands, cups and couches, as real baptism, in the New Testa- 
^^lent use of the term. And so they were, as we shall show, 
though not Christ's ordinance. Whence arises this confusion? 
whence this effort to confound the name of an action, with all 
the circumstances of an ordinance? Evidently from a disposi- 
tion to lead the inquirer's mind away from the point a.t issue, 
■^nd to get sctDpe enough to put iuto tlie ivord, baptizo, all that 
vast variety of meaning svhich will subject the Saviour's rite to 
the caprice of every applicant, and give the dignity of its name 
to every way of apjflying water which the human imagination 
may suggest. 

This IS evident from the terms in which Mr. T. announces 
the ultimate conclusion at which he thinks he has arrived. 
^' If the word therefore denotes the application of water in di- 
vers ways, it is indeterminate, like our word wash, and does not 
define any one way in which the water shall be applied in the 
religions rite. Tliis conclusion is immovable. We have sus- 
tained it by a multitude of examples cited before; and thai all 
lexicographers concur in it, no intelligent Immerser iv'dl denyP 

NOW THIS IS THE VERY THING WHICH I DO 
DENY. Here is a question of fact: Do all the lexicographers 
agree in saying that the word is indeterminate? I aver that 
the standard lexicographers of every country where Greek lite- 
rature is studied, agree in saying just the <!ontrary in their lexi- 
cons. If Mr. Towne has had private communications from any 
of them, reversing what they have printed, let him produce the 
documents or testimony. But if the question is to be settled 
by an appeal to the books, the proofs are now before my eyes. 
My assertion is, that the vv^ords hapto and baptizo, (which are, 
as Mr. T. observes, both from one root and so nearly identical 
in meaning as to allow of our speaking of them as one word,) 
are determinate as to mode, and in this the lexieograi)hers 
generally agree. 

The first authority which I will produce is one which might 
rbe expected above all others to support Mr. Towne's position — 
the Lexicon of the New Testament, by Doctor Robinson, Pro- 
fessor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at 
Andover. I quote hiin first, because his work contains Eng- 
lish definitions, and is accessible to those who wish to consult 
it. Turn to the word bapto. The first meaning which occin-s, 
as "to dip in, to inmierse." The first example to ilkistrate this 
meaning, is John xiii. 26, where Jesus is represented as using 
the word to designate the act of di()ping the sop into the dish 
i)efore giving it to Judas, The next example is Leviticus iv. 



10 

6, wliere the Septiiagint has this term. It is worthy of partic- 
ular notice by the reader of the Bible, because the three words, 
dip, sprinkle and pour are brought into close connection. "And 
t!je priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the 
blood seven times before the Lord ; and (verse 7,) shall pour all 
the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar." Here are 
three different actions expressed by their three a])propriate 
names, and yet Mr. Towne would have us believe that the first 
word [haplo] means the same thing as the other two! Could 
any thing be more absmd ? This quotation of itself shows 
that the first word is determinate as to mode. 

The second and last me.ming in Robinson's Lexicon under 
hnpto, is thus marked: "(b) by imp), to fins;€, to dye.'''* That 
abbreviated word, denoting "by implication,^'' is very important 
in this case, and involves the i)rinciple which Mr. T. from first 
to last has overlooked, and by overlooking it, he misimder- 
stands the lexicons, and his philology is entirely confounded. 
The word hapto incleed means to dve, but then it is by LM PLI- 
CATION. And why by itnplication ? Because if any thing 
be dipped or baptized in coloring matter, staining, tinging, or 
dyeing is the effect. The first example to illustrate this mean- 
ing is Revelations xix. 13; a vesture dipped in blood. The 
word wliich the lexicographer has brought to prove that 
hapto means to dye is in the New Testament translated dipped. 
When therefore hapto means staining or dyeing, it only implies 
it, and denotes that it is performed by dipping instead of any 
other way. This indeed is the usual way of dyeing, as any one 
knows who has visited a dye-house. It is obvious too that a 
thing may be colored by being sprinkled, but hapto does not 
designate that act, and could never be used in connection with 
it in a literal sense, unless it were to express the idea that the 
substance had become thoroughly drenched, or as wet as if it 
had been dipped. 

The j)rineiple here developed in relation to hapto, applies of 
course to haptizo. There is not a lexicon in the world, which 
does not give as the primary, the leading meaning under hap- 
tizo, "to immerse, to sink, to submerge, dip or i)lunge, either 
two or all of them. And if to dye, stain, wash, or cleanse, is 
added, it is as we have just seen, Iw implication. Having now 
examined again the celebrated lexicon of Scapula, J will 
liere present all the meanings under haptizo: merge — im- 
merse, (used in regard to those things which, for the sake of 
dyeing or washing, we immerse in water.) Likewise, tnerge — 
submerge, overwhelm w ith water. Also, ivash off— lave. He 
then adds, that it is af)plied by Christians to the rite of initia- 
tion to the church. Now here are all the meanings given to 
the word, by one of the most celebrated lexicons in Europe. 
First, the i)rimary, specific meaning, and then, in a parenthesis, 
the exclusion of any meaning more general, limiting its appli- 



II 

cation to those cases of dyeing and washing, where for the 
sake of washing or dyeing, the thing is iminersed. A like pa- 
renthesis occurs under hapto. Mergo, immergo — Item tingo, 
(quod fit immergendo;) that is, in Englisii, merge, immerse, 
likewise dye, (which is done by immersing.) The lexicon of 
Scapula is authority over the learned world, and if bapHzo 
means to pour and sprinkle, why ai'e not those significations to 
be found here ? 

I have open before me another lexicon with English defini- 
tions, and vv'ill proceed to quote all those which occur under 
baptizo. It is Donnegan's, edited by Prof. Patton, of Princeton 
College, and may be found easily at the bookstores. Baptizo, 
to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to submerge — to soak thor- 
oughly — to saturate ; hence, to drench with wine. Metaphor- 
ically, to confound totally, — to dip in a vessel and draw. Pass. 
Perf. to be immersed. There are no more, and yet Mr. Towne 
declares that he has proved the word to mean pouring and 
sprinkling, as well as immersion, and that in this indeterminate 
character of it, all the lexicographers are agreed ! Surely, it 
required courage to make that assertion. 1 lay no claim to 
such bravery. 

Tins principle that baptizo has a specific signification, and 
therefore means to wet, wash, or cleanse only by implication, 
thus " by its oivn force " determining the way of af)f)lying water, 
is clearly set forth by those three great lexicographers of the 
New Testament, Schleusner, Wahl and Bretschneider, the last 
of whom says in his Theology, Part II. 673, "An entire im- 
mersion belongs to the nature of baptism." The same remark 
applies to Hedericus, Stephens, Suicer, Passow and Rost. 

Moreover, we may cite many cases in which the word bap- 
tizo, by its own force, must determine the meaning of the sen- 
tence, and if it have not a specific signification, the sentence 
has no sense. For instance, ^anreiai, ri yavg,\\ie ship is bap- 
tized. Now the lexicons agree in saying that this means, the 
ship is submerged, or sinks. (See Donnegan and others.) 
Now if baptizo denotes any ivay of applying water, who can 
tell what happened to the ship? Such phrases occur in his- 
tory, as may be seen in Polybius and Xenophon ; but accor- 
ding to this philology, which I reprobate and pronounce en- 
tirely false, no one could tell whether the writer meant to say 
that the dew fell upon the vessel, or that the spray dashed 
over the prow, or that she was wet by a shower of rain, or that 
the sailors cleansed the deck, or that she sprung aleak, or that 
the waves washed the sides, or that she was launched, or that 
she was purified by some ceremony. Here order is turned into 
confusion. 

Joseph us, (Antiq. 9, 10, 2,) speaking of Jonah in the storm 
on his voyage to Tarshish, says the seamen would not throw 
him overboard, until the vessel was about to sink, or be bap- 



12 

tized. Here the word in question by its own force determines 
the sense. 

Attain, how void of sense is this passage in Strabo, Lib. 16^ 
unless the word before us has the character we assign to it. 
Speaking of the lake Sirbon, he sajs the bitumen floats on the 
surface, because of the nature of the water, which does not ad- 
mit of diving, nor can anyone who enters it be baptized, (or 
sink,) but is borne up. 

I could fill pages with such citations, if it were necessary or 
desirable, showing that if the word does not determine mode, 
there is no clue to the author's meaning. But then it jnay be 
asked, what is to be done with those examples, which Mr. T. 
says j)rove that bapto means to pour or sprinkle ? Let us take 
them up, and see whether they sustain his assertion, or prove 
an extreme eagerness to force on the word a meaning which 
does not necessarily belong to it. 

In his first example from CaHimachus, he says the word bap- 
tize, means to ^^ draw up.'^ '-To-day, ye bearers of water bap- 
tize none" — that is, "draw up none." Now here the word has 
its usual meaning, "dip." The phrase is "?72e baptete."" "To- 
day, ye bearers of water, dip not," that is, your pitchers in the 
river Jnachus. Just so Aristotle says, (Qusest. Mechan. c. 29,) 
"the bucket must first be dij)ped — bapsai — and then draw up." 
Hence Donnegan's Lexicon says, under Bapio, "to draw out 
weter by dipping a vessel into it." Yet Mr. T. says, this exam- 
ple proves that feapfo has a meaning short of immersion! It 
reminds me of the saying of a celebrated logician ; "How few 
there are who know when a thing is proved!" 

His next example is from Hippocrates, who, speaking of a 
certain liquid, says, "when it drops upon the garments, they 
are dyed, (baptized.") Mr. T.'s comment is, "observe, the 
dropping of the liquid is called bai)tism." To which I reply, 
"Observe, the dropping of the liquid is called — dropping; but 
the effect of the process, which was to make a garment look as 
ifit had been dipped in coloring matter, is designated by a 
w^ord, which by implication means to dye, as all lexicographers 
agree." To illustrate the fallacy of Mr. Towne's criticism, let 
us suppose for a moment that he were a Greek, studying Eng- 
lish, and wished to know the meaning of the word dip. First 
of all, he would naturally tuin to a lexicon, and I will suppose 
him to use one as comprehensive as Richardson's English 
Dictionary, which I have now before me, in two quarto vol- 
umes. There he finds the history of the word traced. ^^ Dip. 
[Anglo-Saxon — Dippan — mergere, immergere — to dip — to dive. 
Dutch, Dippen, Doppen. Sw. Doj)a.] to sink, to immerge, to 
put under water or other liquid, to depress, to sink below the 
surface, to enter or go superficially or slightly into any thing. 
Consequentially, to wet, to damp." Overlooking the principle 
involved in the word ^^ consequentially,''^ he says to himself, the 



13 

word dip, means to wet — to damp. Then meeting such a pas- 
sage as this in Milton's Comus, 



"a cold shuddering' dew 

Dips me all o'er/'' 



he gravely reasons thus with himself: "The word dip, may 
mean sometimes to immerse. But the cold dew, Jails on one, 
and wets hy a gentle sprinkling. I will remember therefore 
that the word dip, means to sprinkle." Now I ask, if he should 
persist in calling the act of sprinkling dipping, and appeal to 
Mihon for authority, how would an English school-boy correct 
his mistake? Simply by informing him that the word dip 
means to immerse, and that the poet means to denote the effect 
of the dew, rendering one as wet as if he had been dipped. 

This illustration may suffice to expose the fallacy and the 
folly of a vast host of Psedobaptist criticisms on this word ; 
criticisms put forth by a comparatively small number of the 
clergy in England and America. For on the continent of 
Europe, the really learned have rarely if at all exposed them- 
selves to such a censure. Let it then be borne in mind, that 
if Mr. Towne can prove in any way that bapto means to pour 
or sprinkle, on the same principle I will prove that to dip 
means to pour or sprinkle. I will bring as many examples 
from English literature to prove the latter, as he will bring 
from Greek literature to prove the former. Such a passage as 
this from Spencer would be quite to the point. Of Hope he 
says, 

" She always smyl'd, and in her hand did hold 

An holy-water sprinkler dipt in dew, 

With which she sprinkled favors manifold 

On whom she list." 

How evident it is that as the dew fell in drops on the instru- 
ment called a sprinkler, that the word "dip," there means 
sprinkled. In the same way it can be verily proved that the 
word immerse means to sprinkle, and to sprinkle may mean to 
immerse. And in fact that not one word in the English lan- 
guage specifies with invariable certainty any one way of ap^- 
plying water. Surely, " words are but air!" 

As these remarks on a false principle of interpretation will 
apply to the use which Mr. T. makes of most of his examples, 
I will only notice one or two more, which being printed in 
capitals, he probably deemed particularly important. "Homer 
in his battle of the frogs and mice says: He fell and breathed 
no more, and the lake was tinged with the pin^ple blood ! Was 
the lake immersed in the blood of a mouse?" It may not be 
necessary for me to do it, but I will just hold a candle to the 
reader. I will quote from an English poet, and then ask a. 
question. Cowley, in the Davideis, Book II. says, 

2 



14 

'•' Still does he glance the fortune of that day, 
When droivned in his own blood Goliaih lay, 
And covered half the plain." 

My question is: Can a man be drowned in the blood that he 
has carried in his veins ? You answer, No. I ask then, do 
you not see that to drown means to sprinkle or bedew ? You 
reply at once that 1 have quoted from a work of imagination ; 
that the poet has used a hyperbole ; tliat one design of a hyper- 
bole is to magnify an object, and that though I could not see 
the propriety of the figure without understanding the literal 
meaning, yet it is absurd to look for that meaning in such a 
case. Having once gotten the literal meaning, we can see its 
manifold a[)plication in fig(ues ; but for us, figurative language 
can have no existence unless we first learn what is literal. A 
school-boy who is so far advanced as to master the elements 
of rhetoric can see this; but such noble authors as Kaimes 
and Whately write in vain for theologians who have a favorite 
point to carry. 

This use which some defenders of sprinkling have made of 
Homer's battle of the frogs, reminds me of a poem once made 
by a playful student on another sort of battle, namely, with 
some bugs which had been crushed upon his bed. The line 
which I refer to was, " Lo, my couch is drenched in gore." If 
any thtJig like this had occurred in a Greek writer, a few 
among the clergy of our day wotild have stood ready to assert 
that tlie word translated "drenched," means to sprinkle. And 
what candid inquirer cannot see, that a position must be false 
which requires men to trample down the plainest rules of 
speech, and to argue on principles that w^ould overturn the 
very founjlations of order in language? 

The reply of the Sibyl touching the destiny of x^thens, Mr. 
T. puts all in capitals, as if he thought it decisive. His quota- 
tion is, "Thou mayest be baptized, O Bladder, but it is not 
permitted to thee to go under the water." He takes it from Plu- 
tarch's life of Theseus. His comment on it is, "this floating 
upon the water is called baptism." I might well insert a note 
of admiration here, but I forbear. Let his incjuirer just turn 
to the translation of Plutarch, it is a common book, and found 
in most of the stores. The first life recorded is that of Theseus. ~ 
The answer of Sibyl is there in a single line : 

" The bladder may be dipped, but never drowned." 

This is poetry and good sense ; the other rendering is none- 
sense. The design of the oracle was to represent Athens as 
overwhelmed, pressed down with calamities, yet rising again 
by its own energy as soon as that pressure is taken off; and 
the idea of complete submersion was essential to that design. 

So far is floating from meaning baptism, that Lucian in his 
dialogue of Simon the Man-hater, puts this expression in his 



15 

mouth: "If 1 should see any one floating towards me on 
the rapid torrent, and he should beseech me to assist him, I 
would thrust him from me, baptizing him until he sliould. 
rise no more," Admit Mr. T.'s definition of baptizo, the appli- 
cation of water in any mode, and tlie sense is destroyed. 

In order to corroborate the statements I have made touching 
Mr. T.'s lexicography, I will just treat one or two English 
words in the same way he treats the word baptizo. I will take 
the word to sail, supposing an officer of the government to have 
before him a written document from sonie high authority, to 
sail to Nova Scotia. The word literally means "to pass by 
means of sails." A common man, without prejudice, would 
conclude a voyage by sea to be meant. But by consulting va- 
rious authors, it is found that the word sail, "by its own force," 
does not determine any thing about the mode of conveyance. 
It is found that Milton's angels saiVec? through the air, "the eagle 
sails along the skjV the sailing kite was borne by the gentle 
breeze, the man in a balloon sailed many miles, the moon 
"sailed through the heavens," the queen in her coach, full- 
robed, s«i7ec? ??iq;e5ficaZ/?/ a/owg-, &c. ; and the conclusion is, that 
the word sail means motion in general, and the command to 
sail to Nova Scotia, would be obeyed by walking, or riding, or 
going in a railroad car. 

Just so, the command of Christ, "Drink ye all of it," might 
be evaded by one who wished to dispense with tasting wine 
in the Lord's supper. Common people suppose that the word 
drink in that command, means to "receive the liquid into the 
mouth and swallow it." But it is found by the learned, that 
the word means also "to absorb, to inhale, to take in eagerly, 
to salute with wine, to hear, to see, to wish well in the act of 
taking a cup." (See Johnson, Walker, Richardson.) The earth 
"drinketh in rain," the flowers drink the dew, the ears drink in 
sounds, the eyes "drink the light," — from fingers dipped in 
vinegar the aching tem])les "drink refreshment." Evidently 
then, to drink does not mean to swallow, "but receiving in any 
mode; and so the divine command may be obeyed by inhaling 
fumes of wine, or letting it drop upon the hands to be drank 
up by the pores. Absurd as this may seem, the candid inquir- 
er will bear me out in saying, the philology is just as sound as 
that which asserts baptizo to mean the application of water in 
any mode that is possible. 

On the philological principles of this Essay, I would defy 
Mr. T. or any Psedopaptist writer to cope successfully with the 
Universal ists, when the njeaning of the word amriov, eternal, 
is in question. The one party as much as the other, violate a 
self-evident rule of criticism, thus stated by Ernesti, (p. 7],) 
^•that the literal meaning is not to" be deserted without evident 
reason or neccesity;" and the Peedobaptists especially violate 
another canon stated by the same writer, " let not the transla- 



16 

tor commute genus for species, nor antecedent for conseqaent,** 
page 100. Hence both parlies feel a difficulty in translating 
the chief word, pertaininj^ to their particular system. The 
Psedobaptists cannot find an Anglo-Saxon word to suit them, 
but nuist cover up the idea in the original Greek, and the 
Universal ists, instead of giving us a word that is definite, in 
the English tongue, tell us of " aeonian God, who regards 
all people with an aeonian love, has provided for them an 
aeonian salvation, together with an aeonian righteousness 
through which they shall now experience an aeonian consola- 
tion, and finally possess aeonian life in a aeonian kingdom; but 
if they reject and despise all this, they will be compelled to 
suffer aeonian punishment." The word expresses nothing with 
certainU). 

Having dwelt thus long on Mr. T.'s lexicography, and set 
forth the ])rinciples on which the reader may dis[)ose of all 
the examples he alleges, I proceed to consider his view of 

The Testimony of the Greek Church. 

His inquirer very properly asks if the Greek church do not 
practice immersion, and if they are not good authority on such 
a question ? Mr. T. ohjects to them as witnesses on account of 
their superstition ; says that they do not always practice im- 
mersion, and are therefore against the principle that it is essen- 
tial to baptisin. 

To this I answer, that as this controversy turns on the mean- 
ing of a Greek word, the superstition of the Greeks has noth- 
ing to do with their testimony as to its import. Suppose a 
question of great interest should arise in this city about the 
meaning of a word in the Mahometan Koran. That book was 
written in Arabic; and if there were in Asia a community 
who had always spoken Arabic, and had always had the Koran 
in their hands from the first, and the word in question had al- 
ways been in conunon use among them, would any man of 
common sense say that their testimony were worth nothing? 
Does the superstition of an English sailor render him incom- 
])etent to tell the meaning of the word sail? Does the super- 
stition of any man among us, affect his competency to testify 
to the meaning of the word sprinkW? Now let it be remem- 
bered, that among the Greeks, baplizo is as common a word, as 
sail, or sprinkle, among us. It is one thing to ask a man's tes- 
timony to the im[)ort of a current term in his own language, 
and quite another thing to ask his opinion on a doctrine; and 
in this case, it is not so much the testimony of the Greek church, 
as of the Greek nation, which we desire. 

Now in regard to the practice of the Greek church, the stress 
which they lay on im?nersion, and the reason for it, I have ev- 
idence before me sufficient to settle the question. 



The first testimony 1 shall adduce, is from a paniphlet pub- 
lished in Athens, in 1838, by Theocletus Pharmacides, Secre- 
tary of the Holy Synod of Greece. It seems that some of the 
Russian divines had been endeavoring to justify some sort of 
ablution short of immersion, as being the Christian rite. 
Pharmacides says ; " But we ask the very pious Russian di- 
vines, where they found this two-fold mode of baptizing? 
Was it in the New Testament ? But in that, baptizo, m the 
command of our Lord, 'Go ye therefore and teach ai! nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost,' (Matt, xxviii. 19,) signifies nothing else than 
that which the same Greek word properly signifies. And this 
is manifest from the baptism of our Lord himselfj who when 
be was baptized, went up straightway out of the water ; (Matt. iii. 
16;) but he who goes up out of the water, goes down first into 
the water ; that is, he is all baptized in it. One mode there- 
fore of baptizing, we learn from the New Testament — that by 
immersion, [xaTadvaEtog); and immersion is no other than an 
entire covering by means of or in water. Then again the 
Russians were taught Christianity by us, and from their teach- 
ers they learned one and only one mode of baptizing. And do 
not the Russian divines know how much debate exists, and how 
much contention takes place, between us and those who re- 
ceive sprinkling [rantismon) or pouring, instead of baptism ? 
Sprinkling or pouring, instead of baptism, according to the 
proper signification of the word, was introduced into the 
church by the Latins, in the twelfth or thirteenth century, and 
they also have received it who have separated from the Latin 
churcli. And it is not yeX probably an eiitire century since 
immersion as baptism was entirely disused in Germany. But 
that the verb baptizo in the New Testament signifies nothing 
other than what the verb properly signifies, we bring as a wit- 
ness also a divine of the Latin church, Dr. Frederic Brenner." 

Pharmacides goes on to quote T>i\ Brenner on the point, and 
then proceeds: "See here a divine of the Western church ex- 
plains the word baptizo, in the command of Jesus Christ re- 
specting baptism ; and as he explains the word, other divines, 
of whatever church they may be, cannot but explain it. But 
since the Western cliurch sprinkles or pours, and does not bap- 
tize, it is impossible that she should not wish to justify herself. 
Whence also Dr. Brenner brings after the above, reasons for 
sprinkling or pouring; but these arguments are very much 
forced, as is the conclusion." 

The next witness I shall bring, is from a pamphlet, entitled, 
"Catechism or Orthodox Doctrine of the Oriental Church, for 
the use of the Greek Youth. Published with the approbation 
of- the Holy Synod : fourth editioit, Athens, 1837." 

Page 26. Baptism is a mystery in which the body is washed 
ilouttai) with water. 

2# 



18 

Page 27. The person baptized is submerged [huthizetai) in 
water, while the minister of Christ or priest pronounces these 
words, &c. 

My third witness shall be the Bishop of the Cyclades, a 
member of the Synod of the Kingdom of Greece. His [mm- 
phlet was published in Athens in 1837, entitled, "Orthodox 
Doctrine." It is composed in verse. The phiu of it is this: 
A young man, born of Greek parents in Washington in America, 
and baptized by a Greek priest who happened to be there, 
having been left untaught in the Greek religion, on account of 
the early death of the priest who baptized him, after having ob- 
tained an education, returus to the land of his ancestors. He 
finds himself ignorant of their religion. Fortunately he falls 
in the way of a presbyter, who kiudly explaius to him the 
things necessary to his salvation. This book is designed to be 
a brief system of theology, and at the same time to expose the 
dangers of those young Greeks who are educated in America I 
In regard to baptism," it says, (page 238,) "Let him who is 
about to be baptized and become a Christian, stand uncovered 
At the same time the fonts must be capacious, that they may' 
be full of water, so as to contain the whole body of the person 
baptized, even to the crown of the head ; and that the water 
mmj cover the hairs of the head." 

Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word 
shall be established ; and yet 1 will add the testimony of one 
more, a Greek writer to whom Pharmacides refers with great 
respect, and well known in Europe, Alexander de Stourdza ; 
who in a work entitled "Considerations on the Doctrine and 
Spirit of the Orthodox Church," published in Studgart in 1816, 
says: "The Western Church has done violence to the word 
and the idea of the rite, in ])ractising baptism by sprinkling, 
the very enunciation of which is a ludicrous contradiction. Bap- 
tism and immersion are identical." 

What now should be thought of Mr. Towne's statement that 
the Greeks do not lay as much stress on immersion as the 
Baptists of this country ? and also that "they are against the 
princij)le, that immersion is essential" to the ordinance? Has 
he known whereof lie affirmed ? Has he been misled, or has 
lie failed to inform himself, and then spoken rashly? I can 
make no other supposition without impeaching his sincerity, 
which I would not do by any means. But though a man be 
sincere, rashness connected with the want of knowledge, is 
certainly no virtue. 

Let the testimony of the Greeks be weighed well. We ask 
not their o[)inion as to what good baptism will do, or under 
what circumstances it should be administered, or on any doc- 
trine of the church; but their understanding of an important 
word, which is the same now in their every day speech, that it 
was in the time of Christ. There has been no change. The 



19 

writings of the modern Greeks on the meaning of baptism, 
are conformed to their early Christian literature ; as for in- 
stance, to the expressions of Chrysostom who says, that in 
baptism " our heads are submerged in water as in a tomb." 
(Hom. 25, in Joan.) 

As I look around me here, and see the practice of sprinkling 
called baptism, I am led to ask whence it came ? 1 press the 
question on the Oriential church, and she answers " not from 
me." She abjures it as an innovation which annihilates the 
ancient rite, and charges its introduction on the Papal church. 
I turn to the latter church and address the same question to 
her, and she acknowledges the saying of the Greek to be true. 
She declares that immersion was the primitive practice, but 
that by authority committed to her, she changed it. She admits 
the deed, and claims the right to do it. The large and beauti- 
ful marble baptisteries throughout her realm, the relics of 
many centuries, stand as monuments of a buried rite. Her 
scholars and her priests agree in understanding the Greek 
word, and the primitive practice as the Greeks themselves do. 
I turn to the Reformed churches, and their learned men, with 
the writings of the Reformers in their hands, declare in the 
language of Calvin, "the word baptize means to immerse, and 
it is certain that immersion was the practice of the primitive 
church,"* yet plead for the change, since it is made on the ground 
of expediency or convenience. While these replies linger on 
^jny ear, my attention is roused by a few voices of the clergy of 
New England, denying what the learning of the old world has 
established, and making assertions in bold tones touching 
Greek literature, at which the learned Greeks, Italians and 
Germans, of different churches and opposite opinions in theol- 
ogy, alike profoundly marvel. 

Although the practice of immersion prevails so generally in 
the countries of the Eastern church, where the Pope never 
swayed a sceptre, yet because it is different in those which are 
or have been papal, Psedobaptist writers often represent us as 
setting ourselves against the decisions of a vast majority of the 
learned of Europe. This is an entire mistake. Whatever 
may be the practice of churches, determined as it has been by 
kings and parliaments, pojies and cardinals, the learning of the 
world is on our side in this question. On no point within the 
whole compass of theology, is there so great a union of opinion, 
though not of practice, among the really learned of different 
nations, as is justly observed by the Secretary of the Synod of 
Greece. What though Calvin did not practice immersion ? 
It is enough for me to know that he said "the word baptizo, 
means immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the prac- 
tice of the primitive church." What though Luther did not 

*Calvin's INSTITUTES; Art. 'Bap.' 



20 

practice immersion? It is enough for me to know that he as- 
serted it to be the proj)er mode, as the only one " answering to 
the signification of baptism," and that he so rendered the Greek 
word in his German version of the New Testament. What 
thongh Melancthon did not practice immersion ? I know that 
he gave it the suffrage of his judgment. I might say the same 
of Beza, Erasmtis, Witsius, Venema, Turrettein, Spanheim, 
Grotius and Mosheim, the first of whom says, ^^baptizo does 
not signify to ivash except by consequence," and the last of 
whom declares, " baptism was performed in the second cen- 
tury, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and 
prepared for that purpose, and was performed by immersion 
of the whole body in the bapitsmal font."(Eccl. Hist. Cent. I. U.) 
All the learning of modern Europe, and of the most celebrated 
critics now living, Greek, Catholic and Protestant, utters but 
one voice on this point. If the clear and positive testimony of 
the leading scholars of the universities of Germany will have 
any weight with Mr. Towne or the reader, they may find it in 
an article from Professor Sears, in the Christian Review for 
March, 1838. The Catholic Church, too, speaking through 
such men as Bossuet of a former age, and of the present, 
Wiseman, now President of the English College at Rome, is 
strong in the assertion of the one meaning of the word, and of 
the ancient practice being in accordance with it, though her 
own is not so. Let it be remembered therefore, that the litera- 
ture of the world is with us, and then let it be asked, whether 
Mr. Towne can be justified in charging us with arrogance for 
maintaining a position which the wisest men of every age 
have proved to be right.' Is assumption on our side, or on 
his? 

Nor is Tyndal, the father of our present English version, 
to be left out of this list. Mr. T. places the weight of his 
opinion on the side of sprinkling. Whatever may have been 
Tyndal's })ractice, we have his express testimony to the scrip- 
tural character of our view of baptism. In a comment on 
Eph. V. 26, after reprobating the conduct of the Romish clergy 
in using a Latin form of words, he says: "Now as a preacher 
in preaching the word of God, saveth the hearers that believe, 
so doeth the v.'asshinge, in that it preacheth and representeth 
to us the promise that God hath made unto us in Christe; the 
wasshinge preaclieth unto us that we are clensed wyth Christe's 
blonde shedynge, which was an offering and a satisfaction for 
the synne of al that repent and beleve, consentynge and sub- 
mittynge themselves unto the wyl of God.* The plungynge into 

* So Cowper : 

" There is a fountain filled with blood, 
Drawn from Irnmanuel's veins j 
And sinners plunged beneath that flood, 
Lose all their guilty stains." 



21 

ihe water signifyeth that we die and are buried with Christe, as 
conseriiing the old life of synne which is Adam. And the 
pulling out again, signifyeth that we rise again with Christe in a 
new life, full of the Holy Gooste, which shall teach us and 
gyde us, and work the wyl of God in us, as thou seest, Rom. 
vi." This passage occurs in a work, entitled, "The Obedience 
of all Degrees, proved by God's Worde," imprinted by William 
Coj)land, at London, 1561. Probably Mr. Towne was not 
aware of the existence of such a passage from the pen of Tyn- 
dal, or he would not have spoken as he has done. 

We may see then who, in this controversy, are Mr. T.'s real 
opponents. First, all the Greek nation, who are competent wit- 
nesses of the meaning of a term in their native tongue. Sec- 
ondly, all the learned of other nations in Europe, who feel that 
in their assertions they have any reputation to risk as scholars. 
Though these latter practiced sprinkling, yet they did not do it 
on the ground that the word baptizo meant sprinkle, or that 
such was the practice of the apostolic age. Like the Catho- 
lics, these Protestants plead for it on the ground of expediency, 
convenience, or church authority. Mr. T. knowing that a free 
community, educated like ours, will not ultimately hold to the 
practice on such grounds, feels himself bound to support it by 
the Bible, or give it up, and is thence driven to make the most 
daring and reckless assertions. He seems dissatisfied with the 
moderate statements of Dr. Woods and Prof Stuart, and apol- 
ogizes for what he calls their "concessions," as arising from 
their liberality. But those venerable veterans in controversy 
have made the very best of their cause, and after all, it is the 
only point within the compass of theology on which they lose 
their wonted strength. See how Mr. T. arrays his scholarship 
against the leading men of every church. He says the word 
means to sprinkle and pour! Weigh the statement against 
that of Beza, the author of Latin poems, the Professor of Greek 
at Lausanne, the colleague of Calvin and the translator of the 
New Testament, yet not a Baptist in practice: <' Baptizo does 
not signify to wash except by consequence, for it properly sig- 
nifies to immerse for the sake of dyeing. To be baptized in 
water, signifies no other than to be immersed in water; which 
is the external ceremony of baptism." (Epistola II. ad Thorn, 
Silium, Amotat in Marc. vii. 4, &c.) So Dr. Wall, one of the 
"Lights of the English church," who wrote more largely than 
any man in England in favor of infant baptism, says that im- 
mersion was the primitive practice, and that ^^this is so plain and 
clear, that one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of such Pse- 
dobaptists as would maintain the negative of it. 'T is a great 
want of prudence as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to 
an adversary what is certainly true and may be proved so. It 
creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says." So I might 
mention Dr. Campbell, of the Scotch church, principal of Ab- 



22 

erdeen College, who made Hume actually ashamed of his ar- 
gument on miracles, and was indeed the greatest bibhcal critic 
of the age in Great Britain, in one of his theological lectures, 
urging the exercise of candor on young ministers, cites as a 
ridiculous instance of the want of it, the case of those who 
deny that immerse is an adequate translation ofbaplizo, merely 
for the sake of party effect. And without going further, weigh 
the statement against that of Bossuet of the Catholic church, 
Bishop of Meux, who says, "John's baptism was performed by 
plunging. In fine, we read not in the scripture that baptism 
was otherwise administered ; and we are able to make it ap- 
pear by the acts of councils and by the ancient rituals, that for 
thirteen hundred years, baptism was thus administered throv^h- 
out the whole church, as far as was ])ossible." 

Again I say, let the reader judge on which side is arrogance 
and assiunf)tion ; on mirie or that of my oj)ponent. 

If what I have now advanced in regard to the lexicography 
of the word in question be true, then Mr. Towne's whole argu- 
ment is destroyed. It is not necessary for me to proceed fur- 
ther. All those trifling suggestions about the inconvenience of 
immersion, to the apostle and others, are swept awa>^ The 
error must then die of itself If 1 have crushed the head of the 
serpent, I may well let the tail alone. Nevertlieless, a few 
words on Mr. T.'s treatment of several passages of scripture 
may meet the wants of some inquirers. 1 will proceed there- 
fore briefly to. notice his objections to our views of the 

Baptisms of the New Testament. 

I. John's Baptism, It is useless in this connection to discuss 
the question whether John's baptism is to be called Christian 
or not. The New Testament has but one 7ia7ne for the ordi- 
nance, by whomsoever administered, and the act must have 
been the same. John's baptism came " from heaven." Jesus 
received it, and the disciples had no other. If, as we have 
proved, baptism means immersion, then John immersed. But 
Mr. T. cannot see how it was i)Ossihle for John to immerse so 
many people as resorted to him, in a year and a half. "The 
passage of scripture cannot imj)ort less than five thousand." 
This reminds me of Voltaire's objection to the narrative 
of the slaughter of the infants, in the second of Mat- 
thew. Why, he says, Herod must have slain fourteen thou- 
sand ; and how was it possible that the other historians should 
not have noticed it ? This will do very well for a skeptic, but 
it is absurd for a Christian to place his guess in such a case, 
against a plain statement of the Bible. No number is mention- 
ed ; but he guesses how many there were, and then guesses 
about John's amount of strength, and concludes by putting 
these guesses in print as an argument ! 



S3 

It is said again that the phrase translated " much water, 
means ' many springs.' Tlie plural form decides this point." 
Astonishing! And yet the same evangelist uses the same 
phrase in Rev. xiv. 2, to denote the "deep-sounding sea." By 
this we may judge of Mr. T.'s philology, and of the way in 
which he makes words, " by their own force," decide a point. 

II. The Baptism of Christ Most young Christians would 
naturally feel an interest in their Saviour's baptism, and would 
wish, if it were possible, to be baptized as he was. And as 
the record in the third chapter of Matthew always suggests the 
idea of immersion, millions have hence believed that ihe Sav- 
iour was immersed. Special effort is therefore made to neutral- 
ize the force of this example. First we are informed that Clirist's 
baptism was not Christian. It was only a "Jewish ceremony." 
The Mosaic law, he says, "required every priest to be consecra- 
ted to his work by being washed with water; Lev. viii. 6 ; and 
as this is the only statute in the code which made it necessary 
for him to be baptized, there is no doubt but this is the statute 
to which he referred." Now there is one passage of scripture 
which sweeps all this away. It is Heb. vii. 14, where Paul 
says, " it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah ; of 
which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Here 
the apostle asserts, that no statute of the Mosaic law touched 
the priesthood of Christ, who (verse 13) "pertaineth to another 
tribe, o/ivhich no man gave attendance at the altar^ Had Mr. T. 
never read this passage, or did he forget it ? 

He adds, that we must " either admit that this was the design 
of Christ's baptism, or deny that he fulfilled all righteousness." 
Only think of this ! how dispassionate ! We must either admit 
that Jesus was baptized as a Jewish priest under the law of 
Moses, or else deny the Saviour's words to John : "Thus it 
becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." I must leave our au- 
thor and Paul to settle this. It was the Holy Spirit who indit- 
ed the seventh of Hebrews. 

The next statement on Christ's baptism is equally astound- 
ing. "The ceremonial law required that the washing of the 
priests, (Lev. viii. 6,) when consecrated to their office, should 
be performed by sprinkling. Num. viii. 7. According to the 
scriptures, therefore, Jesus our Priest was sprinkled." All I 
ask is, that the reader will peruse the law of consecration in 
the eighth chapter of Numbers, and then ask himself if Jesus 
fulfilled that at Jordan ? 

In what sense then did Christ fulfil righteousness by his bap- 
tism ? I answer, the term righteousness here denotes practical 
ohedience, as in Luke i. 6. And baptism was a part of Christ's 
obedience " as a son," because it was an appointment of the Fa- 
ther, that thus he should be made " manifest to Israel." John 
knew not the Messiah personally, nor under what circumstan- 
ces or at what time he should see him. But he knew that the 



24 

circumstances were appointed. The event made it plain. Such 
is John's own account. See John i. 31, 33. "And 1 knew hirn 
not, hut that he should he made manifest to Israel, therefore am 1 
come, baptizing with water. And I knew him not; but he that 
sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon 
whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on 
him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And 
I saw and bare record that tliis is the Son of God." In bap- 
tism, therefore, Christ is our example ; and it is our duty for 
the same reason that it was his ; namely, it is an appointment of 
God. 

IJI. The Baptism of the Three Thousand. Mr. T. thinks that 
the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost couhl not 
have been immersed, because there ivas not ivater enough in the 
city ; the hrook Cedron ivas dry, and no suitahle place could he 
found. Is it possible that Mr. Towne should have allowed 
himself to write this, when Dr. Robinson's work on Palestine 
has been so long before the public ? In that the answer is 
complete. In vol. I. sec. vii. 9, there is an article of nineteen 
pages on the supply of water in Jerusalem. The extent of the 
cisterns, reservoirs, fountains and pools, for all the pur|)oses 
of life, appeared truly amazing to the Doctor, who observes, 
" that in the numerous sieges to which Jerusalem in all ages 
has been exposed, we no where read of a want of water with- 
in the city." 

But Mr. T. says, "the Jews would sooner have admitted the 
swine to the baths than the disciples." See Acts ii. 46, 47. 
"They were daily in the temple, praising God, * * having favor 
with all the people.^'' 

So I might proceed to mention all the little improbabilities 
and inconveniences which a fertile imagination has thrown up, 
to discredit the obvious sense of the record of baptisms in the 
Acts of the Apostles. Proceeding in the same spirit, I could 
just as easily throw uncertainty and great doubtfulness over 
the records of some of our own missionaries in Burmah. If 
Dr. Judson had written some of his communications in Greek, 
I could show just as plausibly the great improbability that by 
the word haptizo he always meant immerse. Just so in regard 
to Oncken in Germany ; in cases where he has baptized in 
great haste, and amidst great trials, I could suggest a multi- 
tude of difficulties of the same sort, against understanding his 
accounts always to involve the idea of immersion. One of the 
best attested facts in history, is, that on the 16ih of April, 404, 
Chrysostom immersed three thousand Catechumens, young 
persons who had been instriicted in Christianity at Constanti- 
nople. This he did with the assistance of none but the clergy 
of his own church. And yet there are as many improbabilities 
to be suggested against this statement as against any of the 
missionary accounts in the Acts of the Apostles. 



S5 

Mr. T. well observes, that "this controversy touches more 
than the simple question of immersion." Ay, — it does indeed. 
It touches the fundamental principles on which all languages 
are to be interpreted; for on those adopted here, there is not a 
page of the Bible which gives forth a definite meaning. No 
controversy can be settled, "shadows, clouds, and darkness 
rest upon the prospect," and skepticism becomes the dictate 
of wisdom, because faith can have no foundations. 

The number of instances in which this work betrays igno- 
rance, or forgetfulness of plain scripture facts, is quite startling. 
The writer speaks as if the Jews knew nothing of religious 
immersions. He saj's that the Apostles "had been educated to 
regard sprinkling as siifficient for ceremonial purification, and 
from early childhood had seen the leper and the Levites, and 
indeed the vessels of the temple cleansed by sprinkling." 
This is something like a statement which President Beecher, 
of Illinois, has ventured to make on the same subject. He 
says, " Nor is the washing of the clothes, so often spoken of, 
enjoined by a word denoting immersion." Now for the ref- 
utation of this, just turn to Numbers xxxi. 21, 23. " This is 
the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses. 
Every thing that may abide the fire ye shall make it go 
through the fire, and it shall be clean ; nevertheless it shall be 
purified with the water of separation ; and all that abideth not 
the fire, ye shall makeg-o throus^h the waters Now this passage 
has been in the Bible ever since these writers were boys, and 
how is it, that to all intents and purposes they never saw it ? 
Very different from theirs is the statement of Calmet, as edited 
by Dr. Robinson. He says, "the priests and Levites before 
they exercised their ministry, washed themselves. (Ex. xxix. 
4; Levit. viii, 6.) All legal pollutions were cleansed by bap- 
tism, or plunging into water. 'J'o touch a dead body, &c,, re- 
quired purification. These purifications were not uniform; 
generally, people dipped themselves entirely under the water, 
and this is the most simple notion of the word baptize.''^ (See 
the article, Baptism.) It is asked with a tone of triumph, in 
relation to Mark vii. 4, whether the Jews immersed their beds. 
If any one doubt the possibility of this, let him read the article 
in Calmet on Beds; and as to the fact, the Jewish canon in 
Maimonides runs thus: "A bed wholly defiled, if he dips it 
part by part, it is pure." Their beds were not like ours. 
Again the Jewish rule is, " if any man wash himself all over, 
except the top of his little finger, he is still in his unclean- 
ness." Is not a Jewish Rabbi, from whom the learned have 
quoted seven centuries, better authority on Jewish customs 
than a New England clergj^man ? 

Again. Mr. T. has insisted witli some stress, that when the 
eunuch read that passage quoted in the 8th of Acts from the 
3 



26 

53d of Isaiah, he must have just received an idea of sprinkling 
from the last verse of the 52d chapter: "So shall he spnnkle 
many nations." Now in the septuagint version, published in 
Greek, two hundred and eighty-five years before Christ, this 
word rendered spnnkle is translated astonish, [thaumasontai.) 
Then it would read, 

" So shall he astonish many nations ; 
Kings shall shut their mouths at him." 

The parallelism so prevalent in Hebrew poetry confirms this 
version^ Gesenius in his Hebrew Lexicon sanctions it and 
throws light on its origin. Mr. T. says that "Immersers, in 
their anxiety to evade the point of this argument, find fault 
with oiH' translators for following the original Hebrew in this 
place, and not preferring the translation of the Seventy. But 
this evasion is insufficient." Strange assertion ! Here I ask, 
did not Mr. T. know that the version of the Seventy is the 
very one from which Luke quotes the passage in question? The 
Evangelist himself takes the text of the Seventy, word for 
word ! And well he might, for by that Greek version, foreign- 
ers became acquainted with the Old Testament, and as Rosen- 
muller says, "the Eunuch was undoubtedly reading that 
version, for he does not appear to have been taught Hebrew." 
See then how the Greek text of Luke overturns JMr. T.'s ar- 
gument on this point, so that his labor is lost, and his censure 
on us is shared by an inspired Evangelist! 

In theological discussion nothing has a more injurious influ- 
ence on the mind of a good man, than the yielding up of the 
feelings to the domination to a party spirit. And nothing is a 
stronger indication of this, than the practice of warping scrip- 
ture to suit a purpose. I was struck with an instance of it a 
day or two since in looking at a little work of Rev. Mr. Winslow, 
on Baptism, who in quoting Leviticus xiv. 6, to establish his 
point, has left out the last three words, which materially af- 
fect the sense. I should be pained to think that he had 
done this by design, but am inclined to believe that he copied 
the quotation from another, inasmuch as I know the same 
thing to have been done by a previous writer. 

In taking leave of the work before me, I cannot but express 
the hope that whatever controversy this subject may yet occa- 
sion here, all appeals to party prejudice may be avoided. 
Against this, the love of truth is the only safeguard. In such 
cases, nothing is more easy than a retort, but of what avail can 
it be ? The learned Dr. Wall professed himself ashamed of 
" the profane scoflfs" of writers on his own side, against im- 
mersion ; and deeming it most probable, as he did, that Jesus 
himself, that Mary the mother of our Lord, "the other Mary," 



27 

and the " holy women" who were much with Christ, received 
baptism in this way, his religion kept the door of his lips, and 
prevented him from uttering against it the charge of being in- 
decorous or unseemly for persons of either sex, or any rank. 
Harsh epithets and insinuations against one's motives do not 
require much research. As for myself, if I had written on 
this subject for mere party ends, I should own that I had com- 
mitted a great sin, and without repentance I should expect to 
meet the frown of my Judge in the final day. Let me but be 
convinced that our Saviour in his last command to his disci- 
ples did not enjoin "any particular way" of applying water in 
the initiatory rite which he appointed, and it would cost me no 
sacrifice openly to avow my belief For in taking my position 
as a Baptist, I did not yield to the prejudice of education, or 
the current of sympathy, or the prevailing custom, but was 
"driven in spirit" to do so from the light of truth and the dic- 
tates of conscience. Seeing Christ's command to be explicit, 
I saw that it was at my peril to disobe}^, since he had said, " he 
that loveth me not, keepeth hot my sayings." Acknowledged 
as it is on all hands that baptism is an initiatory ordinance, 
that it precedes communion, just as an oath of office precedes 
all the acts peculiar to it, I perceived that it was no bigotry in 
any church to insist on the connection. The great question 
before me was this: What does the command of Christ mean? 
During the third year of my course in college, I spent days and 
nights in the investigation of it. If at any time a plausible ar- 
gument against immersion made a temporary impression, the 
simple study of the Bible would erase it, till at last I was con- 
strained to differ from a circle of most endeared associates, 
som€ of whom are now in heathen lands and some in heaven, 
and to go forth in baptism, "following the Lord fully," saying 
^'thy word giveth light, and fhy laiv is the truth.^^ 

Acquainted as I have been with a host of. theological stu- 
dents of Pcedobaptist denominations, I cannot but utter my 
sincere conviction, that if before committing themselves pub- 
licly to the ministry they would examine this subject closely 
and prayerfully, their conclusions would be very different from 
what they are. How many commence an examination ap- 
parently in good earnest, and soon finding themselves sorely 
pressed to differ from their beloved friends, begin to falter; 
and ere long, coolly saying, " well, it is non-essential," abandon 
the matter entirely. Hence follows an indifference to the 
whole subject, or else a morbid sensitiveness, which renders 
the very mention of it painful. But if all candidates for the 
Christian ministry would at the outset adopt the maxim of 
Chillingworth, " the Bible, the Bible alone is the religion of 
Protestants," very soon would the unity of the primitive church 
be restored, and all rejoice again in owning " o.ne Lord, one 
Faith, one Baptism." 



APPENDIX, 



It has been my chief design in the foregoing Re})ly to show 
the true meaning of the word baptizo, on which tliis whole 
controversy turns; for if that be settled, all arguments against 
immersion are utterly invalid, derived as they must be from 
custom, inconvenience, church authority, or mere conjecture. 
Hence 1 have omitted to notice several minor points connected 
with the suhject, as of comparatively no importance. But as 
the printer informs me that there is a blank page at the end of 
his form, I subjoin one or two remarks. 

It is well known that Baptists have generally regarded 
Paul's expression in Rom. vi. 4, buried ivith Jtim by baptism into 
death, Sfc, as an allusion to the ancient practice of immersion. 
Mr. T. has written nearly nine pages to show that there is no 
such reference. I have already quoted Tyndal's opiuioti on 
that point, and might quote to the same effect, the opinions of 
the learned writers of every church and every age. But Mr. 
T. asserts that there is no allusion to the outward act of bap- 
tism at all. It relates, he says, to spiritual purification. His 
strong argument is one which he puts in italic, with two 
notes of admiration following. "Mark it, if the burial is lit- 
eral, the death is literal also. If there must be a literal burial, 
there must be a literal death! P^ Now a few words will disjmse 
of this. Let Paul himself answer it. He marks the point of 
similitude. He says, "we are huried with him by baptism 
into death, that LIKE AS CHRIST ivas raised vp from the 
dead, so we should walk in newness of life." I sak then, was 
Christ's resurrection a literal resurrection or not .' Was that 
only a spiritual resurrection ? Why, this is neology. Some of 
the Transcendentalists (so called) S[)eak in this way, and the 
author of Charles El wood comes very near it; but I should 
grieve to think that such a man as Mr. T. had adopted a prin- 
ciple of interpretation that would lead to it. We believe that 
in the case of our Saviom*, there was a literal burial and a lit- 
eral resurrection, and that the initiatory rite of the church, sets 
forth this glorious fact in a visihle emblem. Let any candid 
inquirer read 1 Pet. iii. 21, leaving out the parenthesis for the 



29 

sake of connecting the first and last parts of the verse together, 
and see if there the apostle does not assert that baptism ex- 
hibits in 0. figure the resurrection of Christ. 

On page 61, it is said that most of the immersions in this coun- 
try, ivere derived from Roger Williams. If Mr. T. had not the 
means of knowing the reverse of this to be true, his library 
ought to be better supplied; if he had the means of knowledge, 
he ought not to have made this assertion. Very few baptisms 
in this land trace their pedigree to this source.* When New 
England was settled, the Baptists abounded in our father- 
land, and many emigrated here who were Baptists, while 
Roger Williams was a priest of the Church of England. 
During the Commonwealth, the number and progress of the 
Baptists in England astonished all beholders. In 1663, a 
ivhole church, with their pastor. Rev. John Miles, emigrated 
from Swansea in Wales to Wannamoiset, which now bears 
the name of Swansea, and is a town of Massachusetts. In 
Wales it is well known the Baptists have existed from the 
earliest times, whose history, as Mosheim says respecting the 
Dutch Baptists, "is hidden in the depths of antiquity." f 

On page 15, Ewing is classed with standard lexicographers 
He is a Congregational minister of Scotland, and has written 
with ardor in favor of infant baptism. His arguments should 
be fairly considered, but his authority as a lexicographer in 
this case, is worth nothing. Mr. T. might as well appeal to 
bis coadjutor in the work before us, as philological authority. 

*Knowles' Memoir of Roger Williams. 

t Eccl. Hist. Cent. 16, Sec. 3, Chap. 3, p. 1, 



STRICTURES 



MR. HAGUE^S REVIEW 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER 



ON THE SUBJECT OF 



BAPTISM. 



BY PARSONS COOKE AND JOSEPH H. TOWNE. 



BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED BY WASHINGTON CLAPP. 
1842. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, 

By Washington Clapp, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 



NOTE. 

We learn that complaint has been made of our printing the whole 
of Mr. Hague's pamphlet with ours. We know it is common in such 
discussions to bandy complaints of garhling. But a complaint for 
not garbling, that is, for publishing the whole with its answer, is a 
new thing under the sun. If the matter of complaint be, that in this 
series Mr. H. has not the last word, — he stands in the same position 
as the respondent in a court of justice, where the party opening 
makes the closing plea. Besides, that difRculty can be easily reme- 
died. If he will make out a reply, and print it in a page in uniform 
with ours, so that the whole can be bound together, we will be happy, 
at reasonable rates, and at half the expense at which he can do it, to 
furnish him as many copies of the series as he may wish to bind 
■with his own, giving him in them the last word. 

If the complaint be, that our publishing his work curtails the sale 
by his publishers, we leave any one to judge, whether we curtail it as 
much as we expand it, by the mere fact of replj'ing to it. Besides, his 
publishers, in putting it forth without securing the copyright, as they 
might have done for a trifle, virtually gave it to the public, and have 
no legal or moral right, and no right on the score of courtesy, to com- 
plain of any one for publishing it. 



STEREOTYPED BY 

GEORGE A. CURTIS, 

NEW ENGLAND TYPE AND STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY. 



STRICTURES 

ON 

REV. WILLIAM HAGUE'S REVIEW 

OF 

"HINTS ON BAPTISM." 



BY PARSONS COOKE AND JOSEPH H. TOWNE. 



Mr. Hague's Review of our Hints on the subject of Bap- 
tism, we have concluded to publish with our reply, and our 
first pamphlet ; that the scope of each may be understood at 
a glance. Since our immersing brethren have thought that a 
reply to our pamphlet was called for, we are pleased that 
Mr. Hague should have become our respondent. If their 
cause is made to appear in a disadvantageous light, they will 
not be able to impute it to any incompetency of its advocate. 

We choose not to reciprocate the compliments so liberally 
bestowed by Mr. Hague in assertions of our ignorance. When 
commencing a discussion, we love to feel that we have to do 
with a man who understands his subject, and with whom it is 
reputable for us to contend. A good cause needs not the aid 
of disrespectful insinuations. Since, as Mr. Hague suggests, 
courtesy is on the list of Christian duties, one of his standing 
for intelligence and probity cannot fail to regret, that he has 
suffered many indiscretions to escape him. We are well 
aware, that whoever embarks in any controversy is in dan- 
ger of losing here and there his self-possession. The ability 
to dispute without any symptoms of irritation is a rare attain- 
ment. We shall endeavor, however, so far as we have any- 



84 STRICTURES ON 

thing to do with the present controversy, to keep before us 
one simple object, namely, the illustration and defence of the 
truth. We fully agree with the learned Dr. Wall, that 
remarks designed merely to wound the feelings of an oppo- 
nent do not require much research. 

Mr. Hague takes exception to our use of the term " Im- 
mersers," and intimates it to be "a contemptuous epithet." 
That we had no invidious design, must appear from our seri- 
ous disclaimer, and the reasons given in advance, why justice 
to ourselves demanded the use of the term. (See page 4.) 
Mr. Hague will not contend that the word itself does of its 
own force carry contempt with it, for it is a first principle in 
his theory, that immerse is the word by which baptize should 
have been translated ; and that the word baptize, and of course 
Baptists, do not rightfully occupy a place within the territory 
of the English language. So strong indeed has been the 
preference of his brethren for immerse as a substitute for baptize, 
that they have found it needful to rend the Bible Society, and 
to procure a new translation of the inspired volume, for the 
single purpose of introducing their favorite word. Surely 
they will not say that to call them Immersers is to speak of 
them contemptuously. Already has one of their newspapers 
announced the appearance of this new Bible in our city. 
We would ask Mr. Hague, if the new translation does not 
call John the Baptist, "John the Immerser?" If it does, 
or if it uses some equivalent phrase, we appeal from Mr. 
Hague, to the law and testimony found in that Bible, to prove 
that Immerser is by no necessity a contemptuous epithet. 

Mr. Hague says, " With equal reason the Baptists might 
say — We will not call Congregationalists by the name which 
they have assumed, because we also are Congregationalists." 
If our calling ourselves Congregationalists were accompanied 
with a denial that they are Congregationalists, as their as- 
sumption of the name of Baptists is accompanied by a denial 
that we baptize, his statement would then be true. But is it so ? 
His allusion to the case of Episcopalians is equally unfortu- 



MR. Hague's review. 85 

nate ; — ^for prelate and prelacy seemed to have been coined to 
avoid the implication that other sects have no bishops. See 
Milton's prose works, passi?n. To beg the question in their 
very name, is the common artifice of sects. 

When Mr. Hague reproves us for " striving about words," 
he forgets that his main argument is about a word, to wit, 
baptizo. It seems that a word is all-important in the one case, 
and in the other not worth striving for ! But Mr. Hague 
really considers this change of his denominational name a 
serious aifair, and evidently fears the consequences of it. He 
is too discerning not to see that the substitution of Immersers 
for Baptists would dissolve a charm by which multitudes are 
now so completely spell-bound that they cannot appreciate 
sound argument. 

In bringing under examination Mr. Hague's reply to us>, 
we shall first call attention to some important points of our 
argument, which he has passed over in silence. 

Important matters omitted by Mr. Hague. 

The reader will please to notice, that the points of our 
argument which he has omitted, are such, that, if they are 
conceded, the question is settled against immersion. In his 
appendix, he says, "Hence I have omitted to notice several 
minor points, connected with the subject, as of comparatively 
no importance." 

These points are, first, our whole argument drawn from 
the signification of the rite. This argument we consider of 
itself decisive of the whole question ; and notwithstanding 
what may be said on other points, while this argument re- 
mains unscathed, we hold firmly our ground against immer- 
sion. Verbal criticisms ofiset against the force of /(a:o^5 will 
not satisfy. Let then the reader turn back, and review our 
remarks on the signification of the rite, as a branch of our 
argument which Mr. Hague omits as " q/ comparatively no 
importance. ' ' 



80 STRICTURES ON 

Another of these ^^ minor points^^ is our whole chapter on 
Burial with Christ in Baptism. Aware that Immersers are 
wont to place great stress on their argument from those figu- 
rative expressions, which represent believers as buried with 
Christ, we determined to make its fallacy apparent to every 
reader. We believed that we had succeeded ; and were con- 
firmed in that impression, when we found that our observa- 
tions on that subject were passed over by Mr. Hague with 
merely a brief notice. It is well known, that the argument 
derived from this source has been of all others the most pop- 
ular with Immersers. Let the reader then not lose sight of 
the fact, that, if Mr. Hague has not abandoned this argument 
altogether, he has placed it among those " of comparatively 

NO IMPORTANCE." 

He is also very willing to slide over our suggestions as to 
the presumptive evidence against immersion. He has indeed 
a more plausible excuse for this, in that this kind of evidence 
is not of itself proof against an express command of God, if 
such a command exist. Yet it is to the point, so far as to 
show, how clear and decisive a command should be made. 
If a rite is proposed for our adoption, w^hich in form departs 
from its declared design — which conflicts with the simplicity 
of the gospel — which is not fitted for universal practice — which 
is not suited to all times and seasons — which cannot be ad- 
ministered to persons under all circumstances — which is cum- 
brous and inconvenient — which makes the bearing of the 
cross to be of the nature of popish penance, and which violates 
modesty and decency ; we may for these reasons lawfully de- 
mand strong and indisputable proof that God has indeed com- 
manded us to observe such a rite. And although INIr. Hague 
has thought it best to slide over our suggestions on this point, 
his intelligent readers will not be so easily persuaded to fol- 
low his example. 

Mr. Hague attempts no reply to what is said in our pamph • 
let respecting the degree of certainty lohich his cause de- 
mands. We gave prominence to the fact, that the principle 



MR. Hague's review. 87 

of unchurching all Christians, who have not been immersed, 
lays Immersers under obligation to make out a certainty that 
our Lord has commanded immersion, and that they have no 
warrant to rend the church on the ground of a mere conjec- 
ture. This- issue, so repeatedly tendered to him, he practi- 
cally evades. He is evidently anxious that his readers should 
consider the question one of balancing probabilities. He 
wishes them to peruse his pages with the impression, that he 
has no more to prove than his antagonists. We, therefore, 
call the special attention of the reader to this point. The 
close-communion theory, being necessarily based on a claim 
of infallibility, touching the subject of baptism, binds Mr. 
Hague to make out his case to a complete certainty ; while, 
on the other hand, as we hold no such theory, we have only 
to prove that there is no such certainty. If we can array 
against immersion only a slight probability, our cause is 
gained ; — for then Mr. Hague's certainty vanishes. Now let 
the candid reader take Mr. Hague's pamphlet, and, shutting 
all opposing arguments from his mind, read it by itself, and 
say whether he has made out more than a mere probability. 
If he has not, he is judged, out of his own mouth, to hold 
without a warrant (because without a certainty) an attitude 
of hostility to the peace and union of Christ's kingdom. 

What Mr. Hague has attempted to prove. 

He has judged it expedient to lay out his main strength in 
an attempt to prove, that the requirement for immersion in- 
heres in the very word baptize. In order to sustain his posi- 
tion, he labors to show that the word signifies IMMERSE, 
AND NOTHING ELSE. The reader will then understand 
that the question is not, whether the word sometimes means 
to immerse, hut whether it always has this signification, and no 
other. Hence, if Mr. Hague should multiply volumes of 
instances in which this word signifies to immerse, it would 
avail nothing, unless he should clearly show, at the same 
time, that it has NO OTHER MEANING. While, on the 

8* 



88 STRICTURES ON 

Other hand, if we can bring- proof that the word has even one 
other meaning-, his labor is lost. If the reader will run his 
eye over those instances which Mr. Hague adduces to prove 
his point, he will immediately" see that they go no further 
than simply to show that the word, in those cases, means to 
immerse. He will then not fail to notice the all-pervading 
defect of Mr. Hague's argument. Proofs that the word often 
means to iminerse, multiplied to any extent, are only proofs 
that the word often means to immerse. This we have never 
disputed. Why should Mr. Hague trouble himself to prove 
that which we freely admit? It is for him to show, not that 
the word often means to immerse, but that it has no other 
m,eaning. Hie labor, hoc opus est. 

Before we proceed more directly to point out the insufficiency 
of Mr. Hague's argument upon this word, we must call atten- 
tion to certain unfortunate and erroneous statements of facts 
and authorities. This part of our duty gives us no pleasure ; 
for some of these errors are of so grave and serious a nature, 
that the mere exposure of them may subject us to the impu- 
tation of being unreasonably hard upon our respondent. We 
charge him with no intentional misrepresentations, and would 
gladly spare his feelings. But the love of truth, and justice 
to our cause, will not permit us to shrink from the unpleasant 
duty before us. 

Mr. Hague's Erroneous Statements of Facts and 
Authorities. 

Error 1. We adduced the passage, "He shall sprinkle 
many nations," as proof that the mind of the Ethiopian eu- 
nuch had been directed, previous to his baptism, to sprinkling ; 
and hence we inferred a probability that he was sprinkled. 
To this Mr. Hague replies : " Strange assertion ! Here I ask, 
did not Mr. Towne know, that the version of the Seventy (in 
which the word sprinkle is rendered astonish) is the very one 
from which Luke quotes the passage in question 1 The evan- 
gelist himself takes the text of the Seventy word for word!" 



MR. Hague's review. 8'9 

Such is Mr. Hag-ue's assertion ; and yet the evangelist does 
not quote word for word from the Seventy, but departs from 
that version in four instances in less than four lines, as will 
be seen by the note below.* 

Error 2. On page 76, he says, that Turretin agrees with 
him in opinion, as to immersion. Now what is it to agree 
with Mr. Hague on this subject 1 It is to maintain that the 
word has one signification, and one only. But scarcely a 
writer of equal note, since the days of the apostles, expresses 
himself more decidedly against this view than Turretin. We 
will quote the substance of his remarks, and give the reader 
his own words in a note below. f 

"Baptism (says Turretin De Bapt.) is a word of Greek 
origin, derived from bapto, to tinge, to imbue, and from 
baptizo, to dye, to immerse. Plutarch (on Superstition) 
says, baptize yourself in the sea, that is, plunge yourself in 

* The words in brackets are used by Luke, and not by the Sevent3^ 
Qf fltjMi/oj h'J-VTiov rcu ^iipo^ros [a'vrov^ «<f>a)VO?, ovTcci ovx. raoi'^vi to 
o-TOjUi [styToy.] Ev t« ncnTrilvaiail [:tyTOf] « XP^^^^ a-vrov iipBn tuv [cTe] 
yenav. 

t Baptismus vox est origine Groeca. quae a verbo /2dL7rTC6 deducitur, 
quod est tingere et imbuere, ^oLTni^ttv intingere et immergere. Phxt. 
de Supersti., Batt/^ov <re ii( BiKuLa-a-av, merge te in mare. Et m vita 
Thesei recital versiculum Sybilloe, de AtheniSj qui aptias competit 
Ecclesise. 

AcTKVi 0'X7rrl^>i, Swoli h rot ov QifAt; io-rt. 
Mergeris uter aquis, sed non submergeris unquam. 
Hine pbas est quam i7n?roxd^iiv, quod est leviter ianatare, et minns 
quam cTyvs/y, quod est pessum ire, id est, ad exitium fundum petere. 
Q,uia vero fere aliquid mergi et tingi solet, ut lavetur, etqui immergun- 
tur Solent ablui ; hinc factum, ut quemadmodum apud Hebreeos ^'2'D 
quod LXX vertunt 0x7ni^a) 2 Reg. v, 14, etiam accipiatur pro f ITT, 
quod est lavare. Ibid. Ita apud Graecos to /ictTTTi^itv, per metalep 
sim, pro eodem usurpetur. Marc. vii. 4. " Judaei non edunt ex foro 
reduces, nisi lavarint se ; av /uti ^'XTrTHrcovTcti.'" Nee aliter intelligenda 
sunt baptismata calicum, urceorum, et lectorum apud Judeos usitata 



90 STRICTURES ON 

the sea ; and in his life of Theseus he quotes the Sibylline 
verse concerning- the city of Athens, which more fitly repre- 

Et ifiicpopoi 0itfrri<r/uoi Judaeis praescripti, de quibus Heb. ix. 10; et 
superstitiosae lotiones, a traditione veterum acceptae, de quibus Marc. 
vii. 4. Unde Pharisaei propterea dicti sunt Baptittai Justino. Et 
secta Tcov ufAtpo 0a.7rTi<rrarv, de qua Epiph. haer. 17. Qui quotidianum 
baptismum urgebant, et contendebant, sic abhitum A7ro\cv6<7Bsit xai ay- 
vi^io-Q-tt ctTTo TTdLffH oLirt'M. Ex hac vero duplici significatione mer- 
gendi el abluendi, duae aliae melaphoricae deductae sunt. Prior ut 
baplismus ponatur pro afflictione et calamitate. * * * * Posterior ut 
transferatur ad miraculosamdonorum Spiritus Sancti effusionem, quia 
in animam effundi solent ut earn imbuanl et abluant, Matt. iii. 11, Act. i. 
5j Tit. iii. 5, ex Veteri Testamento, ubi Spiritus communicatio per aqua- 
rum effusionem solet adumbrari. Isa. xliv. 3, Joel ii, 28. * * * Cere- 
moniale est, quod in ritu consistit, nimi ablutio, quae fit per aquam ; 
I Pet. iii. 21, sive per aspersionem, sive per immersionem. * * * 
iuod (sc. aspersio) institulioni Christi minime repugnat ; ita exemphs 
ecclesise apostolicae et primilivae earn seculae confirmari potest. * * * 
Ita ubi magna fuit credentium multitudo, ut quum uno die ter mille 
baptizati sunt, aspersionem potius quam immersionem, quae vix ac ne 
vix quidem, tam exiguo temporis spatio, commode peragi potuit adhib- 
itam fuisse, dubitari potest. Item quum domatim administrabatur 
baptismus, ubi probabile non est, semper adfuisse aquae copiam suffi- 
cienlem ad immersionem; maxime si mopinato res ageretur. Act. 
xvi. 27, etc. In primitiva ecclesia baptismus clinicorum et aegroto- 
rum dabatur, qui sine dubio per immersionem fieri non potuit. Ra- 
t.ones etiam pro aspersione non desunt variae. 1 . Quia vox /ixTrTia-fxou 
et verbum /ict7rTt^i(7-6ut, non tantum de immersione dicitur, sed et de as- 
persione. Marc. vii. 4. 2. Quia res significata baptismi nomine 
aspersionis designatur. 3. Quia aspersio sufiicit, ad analogiam ; nee a 
quantilate, sed a qualitate aquae pendet vis baptismi. 4. Quia sub. 
Vet. T. dabantur variae lotiones, et prtvrtar/uoi, tam aquae quam san- 
guinis, ad quas Christus respicit, in institutione baptismi; unde 
sanguis Christi, qui est res significata, vocatur sanguis PitvrtTfxou. 
5. Quia aspersio longe commodior est, tum ad prospiciendum sanitati 
baptisatorum, quae detrimentum poterat pati ex immersione, in locis 
frigidioribus, maxime in tenellis infantibus, turn ut parcatur pudori, 
qui in adultis ex totius corporis nudatione, oriri poterat ; cujus causa 
legimus dim adhibitas fuisse diacouissas, mulieribus nudandis. 



MR. Hague's review. 91 

sents the church — ' Thou mayest be baptized, O bladder, but 
it is not permitted to thee to go under the water.' Hence it 
means more than lightly to float upon the surface, and less 
than to be overwhelmed or submerged. But because any- 
thing is usually merged and wet, in order that it may be 
washed, and those who are immersed are generally washed, it 
happens that the Hebrew word, which the Seventy render 
baptize, 2 Kings v. 15, is equivalent to the word rendered 
wash in the same passage. Likewise with the Greeks bap- 
tize is used, tropically, to signify washing. (Mark vii. 4.) 
' The Jews, when they come from the market, except they 
wash (baptize) they eat not.' In the same sense must we 
understand the washing of cups, pitchers and couches, cus- 
tomary with the Jews ; also ' the divers baptisms' commanded 
in the Jewish ritual, and referred to in Heb. ix. 10 ; and the 
superstitious washings received by tradition from the elders. 
On account of these washings, Justin calls the Pharisees Bap- 
tists. The sect of which Epiphanius speaks, as insisting on 
being washed everyday, expecting thereby to be purified from 
all sin, was called Every-day-Baptists. From this double 
signification of plunging and washing, two other metaphoric 
meanings are derived. The first, is that which puts baptism 
for afflictions. * * * * The second, is the application of the 
term to the miraculous effusion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, 
because they are poured out upon the soul, to imbue and purify 
it. (Matt. iii. 11, Acts i. 5, Tit. iii, 5.) This manner of 
speaking is taken from the Old Testament, where the com- 
munications of the Spirit are shadowed forth by the pouring 
out of M^ater. (Isa. xliv. 3, Joel ii. 28.) * * * * Baptism, 
viewed as a ceremony, consists in washing, which is done by 
water, (1 Pet. iii. 21,) either ly sprinJding or immersion. 
***** As sprinkling is by no means repugnant to the 
institution of Christ, so it can be shown by examples that the 
apostolic and primitive church practised it." [He here very 
justly distinguishes between the apostolic and the primitive 



92 STRICTURES OIT 

church.] The examples which he adduces are as follows : 
" Where there was a great multitude of believers, as when in 
one day three thousand were baptized, it is hardly possible to 
doubt that sprinkling was practised, rather than immersion ^ 
which could not have been administered in so short a time. 
Sprinkling too must have been practised when the rite was 
administered in private houses, where it is highly unreasona- 
ble to suppose that water was provided convenient for immer- 
sion, particularly in those cases in which they were called to 
perform the ceremony on sudden and unexpected occasions. 
In the primitive church, baptism was administered to the sick, 
on their beds, and of course not by immersion." 

"The reasons in favor of sprinkling, are, — 1. The words 
baptism and baptize are used to designate not immersion only, 
but also sprinkling. (Mark vii. 4, Luke xi. 38.) 2. The 
thing signified by baptism is designated by sprinkling. (1 Pet. 
i. 2, Heb. x. 22.) 3. Sprinkling answers all the purposes 

of analogy, the essence of baptism consisting not in the quan- 
tity of water, but in the use of that element itself. 4. Under 
the Old Testament, there were various washings and sprink- 
lings, both of water and blood, and upon these Christ had his 
eye in the institution of baptism ; whence the blood of Christ, 
which is the thing signified, is called the blood of sprinkling. 
(Heb. xii. 24.) 5. Sprinkling is far more suitable to health, 
which is liable to be injured by immersion, in cold climates, 
especially in the case of tender infants. It also spares the 
sense of modesty. The ancients felt the difficulty arising 
from the exposure of the whole naked body, and appointed 
deaconesses to disrobe the women." 

Such is the testimony of the learned and profound Turretin, 
whom Mr. Hague has summoned upon the stand as a wit- 
ness against us. When brought into court, and allowed to 
speak for himself, he not only gives his testimony in our favor, 
but most eloquently pleads our cause for us. We have quo- 
ted him, however, not for the sake of his arguments, but to 
show what little confidence we can place in Mr. Hague's cita- 



MR. tiAGUE's REVIEW. 93 

tibn of authorities. Turretin does not allow that bapto, the 
radical word, means to immerse at all, and gives baptizo 
another sigriification before that of immerse. He sustains our 
use of the Sibylline verse. He affirms that the Septuagint 
and the New Testament writers give the word the meaning 
of to wash ; and says that the Pharisees were called " Bap- 
tists" on account of their superstitious washings. He gives 
the word the double signification of plunging and washing 
He quotes examples to show that sprinkling was practised by 
the apostles and primitive Christians, and then argues strongly 
in favor of sprinkling. 

Now Mr. Hague, as "an honest man, is bound to thank us 
for correcting his error. And let him not impute to us (as he 
did in a similar case, in respect to Ewing, page 82,) the pur- 
pose of quoting Turretin /or authority ; and declare his author- 
ity worthless, because he does not agree in sentiment with 
himself. We quote him, not for the value of his authority, 
but to expose a misrepresentation. 

Error 3. Mr. Hague says, page 76, that Luther asserts 
immersion to be the only proper mode, as the only one an- 
swering to the signification of baptism, and that he so rendered 
the Greek word in his version of the New Testament. Now 
this is directly contrary to fact. In Mark vii. 4, Luther 
translates the word baptize by a word as near our own word 
wash as the two languages will admit, (waschen.) The 
word baptism, as applied to pots and couches, «&c., in the same 
verse, he also renders by zu waschen. The same is true of 
Luke xi. 38. The German word which Luther uses when 
baptism stands for the religious rite, is not the word which 
means to immerse, if we may place any reliance upon the 
two German lexicons now lying upon our table. The word 
taufen, in KVitner and Nicholson's Lexicon, has only the 
meanings which appear in the note below.* Immersion is 

* Taufen — To initiate into the church by the sacrament of baptism. 
To baptize or christen a child, Jew, or Turk, &c. To give a name. To 



94 STRICTURES ON 

not among them. The only meanings given in Weber's Ger- 
man and English dictionary, are, — to baptize, to christen. 
The same dictionary puts down to the English word immerse, 
the German words eintauchen, untertauchen, versenken, ver- 
tiefen. The word taufen, by which Luther renders baptize, 
does not appear as one of the meanings of immerse, or of 
either of its synonymes, such as plunge, dip, sink or duck. 
Now all this is very strange, if that word so plainly means 
to immerse, and nothing else. And it is still more strange that 
Mr. Hague should have made such an assertion. Whatever 
may be said of Luther's sentiments as to immersion, his trans- 
lation of the word baptize is, in all the numerous cases which 
we have examined, just that which was most consistent with 
his practice. 

Error 4. On page 70, Mr. Hague says of Scapula, (whom 
he praises as " one of the most celebrated lexicographers of 
Europe,") that he gives to bapto and baptize the meaning of 
immerse, (used in regard to those things which, for the sake 
of dyeing or washing, we wash in water ;) likewise to dye, 
which is done by immersing ; and these, together with the 
application of the word to the Christian rite, he says are all 
the meanings given by Scapula. But Scafula does give other 
meanings. He tells us that the word signifies («<|>«A5f yina^at) 
to be upon the sea — to draw up — to fill for drawing up. He 
also gives examples under the sense of to tinge, (which it is 
strange Mr. Hague did not see,) to wit, that of painting or 
staining the hair, and pointing a spear with poison, things 
not done by immersion. 

Error 5. Mr. Hague says that " ]\Ir. Towne seems dissat- 
isfied with the moderate statements of Dr. Woods and Profes- 
sor Stuart, and apologizes for what he calls their concessions 
arising from their liberality." Now this is a fabrication of 
Mr. Hague's entire ! We neither said nor intimated any such 

give a name in a solemn manner. To mix with water, to dilute or 
sophisticate. 



MR. Hague's review. 95 

thing-, in relation to either of those distinguished men. We 
spoke of them with approbation, and quoted their language as 
sustaining our views. What reliance can Vve place on Mr. 
Hague's citation of authorities, when he quotes from our book 
what is not to be found in if? We did say, that " some of 
our writers on the subject, from a desire to show a, generous 
and liberal spirit, have made unwarrantable concessions.'^ 
The names of Messrs. Stuart and Woods, however, are not 
mentioned within many pages of this sentence ; nor are they 
here referred to by even the remotest implication. If Mr. 
Hague has seen fit to imagine that we had those gentlemen 
in our eye, we say that he takes too great liberties. He must 
not publish his surmises for facts. 

Error 6. On page 80, Mr. Hague says, " the writer speaks 
as if the Jews knew nothing of religious immersions ; ' ' and 
then proceeds to tell us, as if he considered us ignorant of the 
fact, that in legal purifications " the people sometimes dipped 
themselves," Let the reader turn back to page 9, and he 
will find that we recognise the fact, of which Mr. Hague so 
gravely informs us. We there state that "Paul calls the 
different washings done in the tabernacle service, baptisms, 
and that among them all liiere is Bot an instance of immersion 
by the priests. In all cases where the subjects bathed, there 
was no official administration.''^ Now let the reader decide 
whether we spoke as if the Jews knew nothing of religious 
immersions. That Mr. Hague should aflarm that our " work 
betrays startling instances of ignorance or forgetfulness," and 
follow up that imputation with the above sentence, is some 
temptation to retort railing for railing. But we forbear. 
We take occasion to say, however, that when a person was 
required by the law of Moses to be immersed, the assistance 
of a priest, or crowd of spectators, was not a part of the cere- 
mony. We challenge Mr. Hague to point out a single 
instance of immersion by the hands of a priest. The person 
bathed himself. This, both nature and decency seem to ren- 



96 STRICTURES ON 

der necessary. And from this fact, which Mr. Hague is very 
willing that his readers should overlook, we might fairly 
infer, that the gospel, if it had required immersion, would 
have required each individual to immerse himself. 

Error 7. On page 71, Mr. Hague says, " The principle that 
baptizo by its own force determines the way of applying water, 
is clearly set forth by those three great lexicographers of the 
New Testament, Schleusner, Wahl, and Bretschneider." 
Astonishing! Schleusner defines baptizo, 1. to immerse in 
water ; 2. to wash, sprinkle, or cleanse with water, (abluo, 
lavo, aqua purgo ;) 3, to baptize ; 4. to pour out largely, (pro- 
fundo largiter, &c.) Only one of Schleusner's definitions 
restricts the meaning to immersion. Three of them denote 
the application of the fluid by affusion. Wahl defines bap- 
tizo, first, to wash, to perform ablution, to cleanse. Bret- 
schneider's lexicon gives no ground for Mr. Hague's asser- 
tion, for he defines baptize, to wash, to perform ablution, &c. 
We have never yet seen a lexicon which sustains Mr. Hague's 
position. We may well apply to him a remark which Pro- 
fessor Stuart applies to the great champion on his side of the 
controversy, Mr. Carson. "Mr. Carson,^'' says the professor, 
" lays down some very adventurous positions in respect to one 
meanings and one only, of words, which, as it seems to me, every 
lexicon on earth contradicts, and always must contradict.''^ 

Error 8. On page 71, Mr. Hague asserts that Hedericus, 
Stephanus, Suicer, Passow, and Rost, "declare an entire 
immersion to belong to the nature of baptism." Of two of 
these we know nothing. Hedericus (see his lexicon) defines 
baptizo, immerse, wash, sprinkle. Stephanus defines it, im- 
merse, wash, cleanse. Passow defines it, immerse, wash, 
sprinkle. 

Error 9. On page 70, Mr. Hague asserts that there is not 
a lexicon in the world, which does not give as the primary, 
the leading meaning under baptizo, to immerse, to sink, to 
submerge, either two or all of them. " This is not true. The 
lexicon of Flacciolatus and Forcellinus gives the meanings 



MR. Hague's review. 97 

in the following order : Baptizo, abluo, lavo, i. e. to perform 
ablution, to wash. The lexicon of Constantius gives the 
meaning of bapto, the ro-ot of baptizo, thus :- — Bapto, to tinge, 
tf3 wash, to color, to immerse, to tinge or tincture with oint- 
ment, to imbue, &c. Buck, in his dictionary, says, ^^ its 
radical, 'prober, and primary meaning is, to tinge, to dye, to 
wet, or the like ; which primary design is effected by differ- 
ent modes of application." Wahl, in his lexicon, defines it, 
first, to wash, to perform ablution, to cleanse ; secondly, to im- 
merse, &c. This is sufficient to show the incorrectness of Mr. 
Hague's statement. See Pres. Beecher's Letter, on Lexicons. 

Error 10. It is stated in our essay, that the word baptize 
denotes the application of water in divers ways ; that all 
lexicographers concur in this fact, and that no intelligent im- 
merser can deny it. Mr. Hague is an intelligent Immerser, 
and he denies it. Yet our statement is true ; for Mr. Hague's 
denial is neutralized immediately by his own citations. He 
appeals to Robinson's lexicon, as one which confines the 
meaning to immerse, and yet he quotes other meanings. The 
same is true of others named by him. Mr. Hague seeks in- 
deed to evade the point, by saying that all the other meanings 
are figurative, or derived, or come by implication. This 
will be more fully answered hereafter. It is enough to say 
here, that other meanings are other meanings, come from what 
source they may. And the denial in that form, though put 
forth in capitals, is virtually no denial ; for our assertion was 
preceded by a recognition of the principle, that several dis- 
tinct meanings of a word may be derived from one another. 

The reader is now prepared to estimate correctly the va- 
lidity of Mr. Hague's claim to all the lexicographers. We 

SOLEMNLY AVER THAT NO LEXICOGRAPHER WITHIN OUR KNOW- 
LEDGE, IN ANY COUNTRY, AGREES WITH HIM. DoeS Scapula 

agree with him'? No. Do Flacciolatus and Forcellinus? 
No. Does Constantius ? No, Does Hedericus ? No. Does 
Bretschneider ? No. Does Schleusner? No. Does Wahl? 



98 STRICTURES ON 

No. Does Stephanns ? No. Does Parkhurst ? No. Does 
Ainsworth? No. Does Leigh? No. Does Cole? No. 
Does Passow? No. Do Suidas? Coulon? Greenfield? 
No. DoesZonoras? No. Does Gross? No. Does Schre- 
velius, that great master and critic of the Greek tongue ? 
No. Carson admits that the lexicographers are against 
him. But Mr. Hague does more than simply set his 
authority in the scale against the authority of lexicogra- 
phers, the most eminent the world has ever seen. They 
affirm that baptizo signifies affusion as well as immersion. 
But Mr. Hague contends that it signifies only immersion, and 
will have it that the lexicographers agree with him ! This is 
wonderful ! How shall we account for it ? Would Mr. 
Hague deceive his confiding readers ? Impossible. Has he 
never consulted the lexicographers for himself? — Confessedly 
there is here something of mystery which we cannot evolve. 
We must leave the task with our readers. 

Learned Critics and Theologians. 

With a little swell of language, Mr. Hague repeatedly 
asserts that all the learning in the world sustains his opinion 
as to immersion. " The literature of the world," he says, " is 
with us." This is comforting, if true. But our preceding 
examination of Mr. Hague's assertions will excite the suspi- 
cion, that this also must be taken with some grains of allow- 
ance. 

We have already seen what kind of support Turretin gave 
to the immersing principle, when called into court to testify. 
Perhaps it may be well to summon a few other learned critics 
and theologians upon the stand, as Mr. Hague has appealed 
to such authority. 

Flacciolatus, in illustrating the meaning of the word, 
gives an account of certain effeminate priests, at Athens, 
called Baptai, from hapto, to tinge, because like women they 
tinged, that is, painted their faces. He, of course, found 
something in the word besides immersion. 



•^ MR. Hague's review. 99 

Mr. Hague will probably admit, that Vossius was not desti- 
tute of some share of the learning of the world. He was one 
of the most distinguished scholars of the sixteenth century, and 
professor in two of the seminaries, then the most celebrated. 
In one place he says, that, "As in the purifications under 
the law, affusion or sprinkling was sufficient, so in the Chris- 
tian church, we esteem affusion sufficient for baptism." He 
says, in another place, " It is clear that the ancient church 
baptized naked ; and there are some who think the custom 
ought to be observed now, and deny that affusion is baptism. 
If we discover that the apostles immersed, it does not follow 
that they always observed this mode. Sometimes they must 
have baptized by pouring, on account of the multitude, as 
when they baptized three thousand in one day." He also 
gives an example of baptism by affusion, by one Laurentius, 
a martyr. " One of the soldiers," he says, " named Romanus, 
bringing a cup of water and offering it to him, seized the op- 
portunity to be baptized.^^ This case shows that, in the third 
century, affusion was so common a mode of baptism, that a 
soldier could offer himself for it, asking no questions. Vos- 
sius also objects to immersion. He quotes another example 
in which a person, even though baptized naked, was not im- 
mersed : — "and when he had stripped off his clothes, he 
poured water upon his head.^^* 

Walfried Strabo, in his work, De Rebus Eccles., says, 
"It is to be noticed that many were baptized, and are still 
baptized, not only by immersion, but by pouring water from 
above upon them."f 

Duns Scotus, Dis. 3. "In baptism the essential part is one 
thing, to wit, washing or purifying ; according to Ephes. v., 
where the apostle calls baptism the washing of water ; and 

* Et cum expoliasset eum, fudit super caput ejus, 
t Notandum, non solum mergeudo sed etiam de super fuadendo 
multos baptizatos fuisse, et adhuc posse baptizari. 



100 STRICTURES ON 

the accidental part another, namely, whether the ablution 
or purifying be performed by this or that mode."* 

Thomas Aquinas declares, that as the purification of the 
soul is meant by baptism, it is not essential which way it is 
done. 

Calvin, in his commentary on Acts, (viii. 38,) after speak- 
ing of the former prevalence of the custom of immersing, 
says — " The custom now prevails, of the minister's sprinkUng 
water only on the head or body. But so trifling a difference 
in a ceremony, ought not to be esteemed of such importance 
as, on account of it, to divide the church, or disturb it with 
controversy. For the ceremony indeed, AS FAR AS IT 
HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO US BY CHRIST JE- 
SUS, I would rather suffer death than it should be taken 
from us. But since in the symbol of water we have the tes- 
timony both of our purification and of our new life ; since in 
water, as in a glass, Christ shows us his blood, that we may 
apply it for our purification ; since he teaches us to be renewed 
by his Spirit, that we may be dead to sin and alive to righte- 
ousness, it is certain that there is nothing, which belongs to 
the substance of baptism, wanting in the prevailing practice. 
Hence, from the beginning, the church allowed itself to differ 
somewhat as to the form, while sure of retaining the substance.''^ 
Again, he says, "Whether the person baptized be wholly 
immersed, and whether thrice or not, or whether water be 
only poured or sprinkled upon him, IS OF NO IMPOR- 
TANCE." Here is a comment on Mr. Hague's assertion 
that Calvin agreed with him in opinion, while he differed in 
practice. " We might well insert a note of admiration here, 
but we forbear." Did Calvin think that the command to bap- 
tize carried, of its own force, the command to immerse ? 
How then could he say, that the substance of that command 

* In Baptismo aliquid est de essentia, ut ablutio ; juxta illud ad. 
Eph. v., ubi apostolus baptismum appellal lavacrum aquai ; aliud vero 
accideuiiunij nempe ut ablutio hoc vel illo modo fiat. 



MR. Hague's review. 101 

is realized in sprinkling ? How could he affirm that in sprink 
ling we have the rite as far as it has been committed to us b\ 
Christ Jesus? (Quatenus nobis a Christo tradita est.) Is Mr. 
Hague ready to adopt as his own the sentiments and language 
of this illustrious reformer"? Mr. Hague's quotation from 
Calvin is true ; BUT NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH. It 
illustrates admirably our remarks on page 14. Calvin says 
that baptizo signifies to immerse ; but he does not say that it 
means nothing but immersion, nor that immersion is essential 
to Christian baptism, nor that it was the only mode practised 
by the ancient church. Probably Mr. Hague had never read 
Calvin, and cited him on the authority of some controversialist 
on his side of the question. 

The celebrated Wolf was a man of some learning. But 
he, in his Curae Philol., does not exactly chime in with Mr. 
Hague's opinions. In his remarks on the passage — "Go, 
and teach all nations, baptizing," &c., he says — " Baptizo de- 
notes not only immersion, hut also sprinkling and affusion. ^^ 
And again, on Acts viii. he says — " it signifies both to immerse 
and to tinge ; and both forms were practised by the ancient 
church, which is evident from ancient monuments described 
by Mabillionius." 

Athanasius, as Vossius informs us, did not censure the 
Arians for sprinkling, but for sprinkling in the name of the 
Trinity, when they did not believe it. His words imply that 
he considered sprinkling baptism. 

With an air of triumph Mr. Hague quotes Beza, ^Hhe 
author of the Latin poems, '^ as agreeing with him, (page 77.) 
But if Mr. Hague will adopt Beza's sentiments, there will be 
no further need of controversy. This^ writer, after showing 
that the phrase " in the water" determines nothing, says, " / 
have noted this, lest any one should suppose there is any force 
in this particle, as those seem to persuade themselves, xoho think 
that children are not rightly baptized, unless immersed. ' ' A gain , 
he says, after admitting that baptizo signifies immersion, 



102 STRICTURES ON 

''YET BAPTIZO IS TAKEN MORE LARGELY FOR 
ANY KIND OF WASHING, WHERE THERE IS NO 
DIPPING AT ALL." Here you see disclosed the true sen- 
timents of Beza. And yet Mr. Hague and the Watchman 
are proclaiming to the world that Beza was a close commun- 
ion immerser ! We are almost tempted to exclaim, O shame ! 
where is thy blush? But it is said, " Beza says that baptizo 
signifies immersion." So do Messrs. Towne and Cooke. 
But does Beza say that it means nothing hut immersion? 
Does Beza say that immersion is essential to the rite 1 Does 
Beza say that none are rightly baptized, unless they are 
immersed ? That he never intended to be so understood, is 
evident from the above quotations from his writings. 

Zanchius, the intimate friend of the famous Peter Martyr, 
was a celebrated scholar, and at one time read lectures both 
in divinity and in the Aristotelian philosophy in the seminary 
at Strasburg. He says, "Baptizo doth as icell signify to 
dye, and simply to sprinkle, as to immerse." — Cultu Dei. Lib 
1. Chap. 16. 

Parseus says, "Baptism, with the Greeks, imports any 
washing or cleansing, whether it be done by dipping- or sprink- 
ling." Paraeus was an eminent scholar of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, and made by prince Casimir a professor at Heidelberg. 
In 1589 he published the German Bible, with notes. 

Musculus was a distinguished scholar of the sixteenth cen- 
tury. In 1549 he was settled as professor of theology at 
Bern. He also wrote Latin poetry, and left many valuable 
commentaries on the Scriptures. Musculus says, "It is free 
for the church to baptize either by dipping or sprinkling." — 
Wall's Hist. 

Lynwood says, "Dipping is not to be accounted of the 
essence of baptism, but it may be given also by pouring or 
sprinkling." — Do. 

Trelactius says, " Baptism, according to the etymology of 
it, signifies commonly any kind of ablution or cleansing." — 
Lib. 3. de Baptisrao. 



I 



MR. Hague's review. 103 

Tilenus says, "If we regard the etymology of the word 
baDtism, it signifies dipping and also sprinkling." — Disput. 
de Baptismo, p. 883. 

Let us next hear a few additional words from Luther, who 
seems to be a favorite with Mr. Hague. In his homilies on 
baptism, which v/ere not written with any reference to the 
mode, Luther throws out here and there a casual expression, 
which gives a clue to his opinions. In the passage — "He 
that believeth and is baptized,''^ &c., he uses tingo, a word 
employed frequently to designate simply to wet. He says, 
" It must be known and believed that it (that is, the water of 
baptism) is such that by it we are purified and cleansed, and 
receive what the Scripture calls the washing of regeneration." 
This is not the style of speech common with Immersers. 
Again, he thus speaks of baptism : — " Concerning this ablu- 
tion and cleansing from sin, David says — ' Wash me from 
iniquities, and cleanse me from my sin. Sprinkle me with 
hyssop, and I shall be clean.' And the prophet — 'I will 
sprinkle clean water,' &c." It will be perceived that Lu- 
ther is here showing, that the true end of baptism is not 
accomplished, except the soul is cleansed from sin ; but the 
costume of the external rite is evidently alluded to. In another 
paragraph, preserving the same connection between the sign 
and the thing signified, he says, "Baptism is nothing else 
than to be washed and cleansed in the red and precious blood 
of Christ. Hence Peter says of those baptized, that they 
were sprinkled hj the Mood of Christ^ (iPet. i. 2.) In his 
annotations, Luther calls the legal washings, commanded by 
Moses, various baptisms. In view of these quotations, the 
reader will see with what truth it is claimed, that Luther 
found in the word baptize the necessary and exclusive mean- 
ing of immersion. 

Erasmus ranks among the first scholars of modern times. 
He calls the sprinkling of the blood of Christ baptism. 

Jerome says, " The Lord Jesus declares, I have also anothe? 



104 STRICTURES ON 

baptism to be baptized with. You baptize me with water, that 
I may baptize you, as a witness for me, with your own blood.'' ^ 
This was incidentally said, and it shows that Jerome found 
something besides immersion in the word baptism. The mar- 
tyr surely was not immersed in his own blood. And yet 
Jerome calls the shedding of one's blood in martyrdom a bap- 
tism. There are no limits, however, to some men's ingenu- 
ity. Since Mr. Hague has contrived to immerse a lake in the 
blood of a mouse, he may attempt (and with equal success !) 
to make out a case of immersion here. 

In Marturologio Adonis, ad. 3. Cid. Majus, we read, 
" Whom the blessed Callistus, after enjoining fasting, cate- 
chised, brought water and baptized, (allata aqua baptizabit.) 
Here the water ivas brought — of course not for immersion. 
But nevertheless it was brought for baptism. 

Bassilius, speaking of the forty martyrs, says — " They 
were baptized, not with water, but with their own blood."* 
They were not immersed in their own blood, and yet they 
were baptized with it. 

Peter Martyr, the celebrated reformer and theologian of 
the sixteenth century, at different times professor of divinity 
at Strasburg, Oxford, and Zurich, thus gives his testimony : — < 
" Baptizo signifies not only to dip, but in any way to tinge or 
wet."" 

Alstedius, another eminent scholar of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, professor of philosophy and theology, at Hesborn, in 
Nassau, and afterwards at Wettemberg, in Transylvania, 
says, " The term baptism signifies both immersion and sprink- 
ling, and of consequence ablution." And so say Wolledius, 
Doederlein, Danaeus, Ursinus, Lightfoot, WicklilTe, Yorri- 
long, Bonaventure, Mastricht, Ivecherman, and a host of 
others. 

Mr. Hague will not dispute the authority of Tertullian, 

* E^sLTnia-Bn ovK. iv uSciri d.K\iv to IS'ice at^Att. 



MR. Hague's review. 105 

Who lived within one hundred years of the apostles. This 
venerable father says, "that baptizo means not only to im- 
merse, but also to pour." (Mergere non tantum, sed et per- 
fundere.) 

Will Mr. Hague pretend that the most learned theologians 
and biblical critics of our own country are with him 1 Dr. 
DwiGHT says that " the primary meaning of the word baptizo 
is cleansing.'''' Barnes says, "Baptizo signified originally 
to tinge, to dye, to stain." Professor Stuart, after stating 
that he could see no evidence that immersion was exclusively 
the mode of Christian baptism, affirms that " if any one main- 
tains the contrary, it must be either because he is unable 

RIGHTLY TO ESTIMATE THE NATURE OR POWER OF THE GrEEK 

LANGUAGE ; ' or bccaase he is influenced in some measure by 
party feeling ; or else because he has looked at the subject in 
only a partial manner, without examining it fully and thor- 
oughly." 

In view of these facts, in what light appears Mr. Hague's 
turgid boast, that all the learning of the world sustains his 
side of the controversy? He is confounded by his own wit- 
nesses. What is the testimony of Wolf? Calvin? Athana- 
sius? Beza? Zanchius? Vossius? Parseus? Musculus? 
Lynwood ? Trelactius ? Tilenus ? Erasmus ? Jerome ? 
Bassilius? Peter Martyr? Alstedius? Tertullian? Wol- 
ledius ? Doederlein ? Lightfoot ? Danaeus ? Ursinus ? 
W^icklifFe? Bonaventure? Kecherman? Vorrilong? Mas- 
tricht? Thomas Aquinas? Wall? Leigh? Lombard? 
Morus? Whitaker? Maldonet? Piscator? Walker? 
Pool ? — ^but we forbear. Time would fail us to allude even 
by name to the numerous Greek scholars and biblical critics, 
in Europe and our own country, who give no countenance 
whatever to Mr. Hague's principles. Their united voice is 
against him. They may admit, indeed, that immersion is one 
meaning of the Greek word. But never do they contend for 
tins meaning exclusively . Never do they maintain that with- 
out an immersion there is no baptism. These illustrious men 



106 STRICTURES ON 

are made to support such principles — ^how ? By keeping hack a 
fart of the truth, as in the case of Ewing, page 14. We ven- 
ture to affirm that, in almost every instance, where a critic 
of any notoriety is cited by the advocates for immersion, he 
would serve them no purpose, if permitted to utter his entire 
sentiments. 

There is one expedient adopted by Mr. Hague, in order to 
bring the learned on his side, which, if not original with him, 
is at least quite amusing. Apprehending some difficulty from 
the well-known fact that the great body of the learned of the 
present day practise sprinkling, and fearing that this might 
lead his readers to suspect the correctness Of his statement, 
he ventures the presumptuous assertion, that, if they do not 
agree with him in practice, they do agree with him in senti- 
ment. What ! do Christian scholars universally believe im- 
mersion essential to the very natxLre of baptism, and yet prac- 
tise sprinkling 1 This is a sweeping charge of insincerity. 
That they so generally practise sprinlding is, to our minds, 
satisfactory proof that they do not consider immersion posi- 
tively enjoined by the command of our Lord to baptize. Mr. 
Hague's assertion implies that they are acting hypocritically. 

We have now destroyed the whole force of Mr. Hague's 
Reply, and might lay aside our pen. But as we commenced 
with a purpose to leave no suggestion of his unanswered, we 
shall proceed briefly to notice his 

Principles of Philology. 

The grand principle of Mr. Hague's philology seems to be 
this — that if all the various meanings of a word can he traced^ 
hy any relation, however fanciful, to any one of those 77iea)ii?igs, 
that one embraces the ivhole in itself Such a principle, if ad- 
mitted, would lead directly to the conclusion, that no word in 
the language has more than one meaning. In his remarks 
on the several definitions given to the word baptize in Robin- 
son's Lexicon, Mr. Hague says — "That abbreviated word, 



MR. Hague's review. 107 

denoting hy implication, is very important in this case, and 
involves the princinle which Mr. Towne has overlooked, and 
hy overlooking it, he misunderstands the lexicons." It seems, 
then, that we have not yet learned to read the lexicons, be- 
cause we see not how to trace all the meanings, which branch 
off by implication, to one meaning, and make the whole family 
of significations attached to each word but one meaning. 
Upon this principle the whole controversy is in fact made to 
turn. Mr. Hague assumes it as a just principle of philology, 
and bases his reasoning upon it. Let us test this principle by 
some English word. 

Take, for example, the word spring. The first meaning 
which occurs, is a leap or jump. Then others follow — as, 
elastic power — an elastic body — motives — a fountain of water 
— a season of the year — a crack in a mast — the source of a 
thing. Let the reader now see if he cannot trace these vari- 
ous significations back to the first, to wit, a leap or jump. 
The idea of elastic power comes from the first by implication, 
because one jumps by means of elastic power ; and so with 
the rest. Now if Mr. Hague should say that a crack in a 
mast is the same by ^^ implication'^ with motives of conduct, 
or a fountain of water the same with the spring of a watch, 
he would only be carrying out that favorite principle of phi- 
lology, which he complains that we overlook. He might 
just as well say that spring, when used to designate a part 
of a watch, means the same as when used to designate a 
fountain of water, as to say that baptize, when used oi^ lather- 
ing one''s face, means the same as when used of lathirig in 
the sea. These surely are different actions, expressed by the 
same word. Let the reader apply Mr. Hague's principle of 
one meaning to the following sentence : — In the spring of 
1840, a man by the name of Spring, made a spring over a 
ditch, and fell into a spring on the opposite side, and broke 
the spring of his watch. 

Permit us to remind Mr. Hague that secondary meanings 



108 STRICTURES ON 

shoot forth from the primary signification of almost all words ; 
a grand characteristic of language which he seems wholly to 
overlook. They proceed generally from cause to effect ; and 
it not unfrequently happens that the primary meaning is 
merged or lost in some remote secondary. For the sake of 
illustration, let us suppose that baptizo signified originally 
to immerse. As washing is sometimes the effect of immersing, 
the word might easily pass from its first specific signification, 
to denote simply the effect ; and in process of time wholly 
displace the specific meaning. On the same principle, it 
might come to mean to dye, and to tinge, without retaining 
the idea of immersion. As purification is an effect of wash- 
ing, this meaning might engraft itself upon washing, and ex- 
press at last the whole force of the word : so that to baptize 
and to purify would be equivalent terms. This meaning the 
word might very naturally assume in standing for a religious 
rite, the main design of which was to symbolize the purifica- 
tion of the soul. If such is the nature of language, an attempt 
to chain words to one meaning is fruitless ; and to contend 
for the primary idea, in all the subsequent usages, is ridicu- 
lous. 

Mr. Hague says, that baptizo must determine the meaning 
by its own force, or there is no clue to the author's meaning. 
If Mr. Hague says this of some fragment of a sentence, we 
reply that it does not determine the sense by its own force, 
and there is no clue to the author's meaning. The example 
which he himself cites (/ixTnnctt « vmc) is admirably in point. 
He says that the lexicons agree in saying, that this means, 
the ship sinks. But would he have known it, if the lexicons 
had not said it ? And could the lexicographers have discov- 
ered it, if they had not seen the word in connection with other 
words 1 That they could not, is clear ; — for those same lexi- 
cographers tell us that the word sometimes means simply 
{i<psiKoc yivta-Qxi) to be on the sea. The wo7'd itself does not 
forbid our translating the phrase, the ship is washed with the 



MR. Hague's review. 109 

waves, or the ship is launched, &c. The two words. alone 
furnish no clue to the author's meaning. We will give 
another example, as to o-a^a dLviw iSaipii. Will Mr. Hague tell 
us the precise meaning of the Greek verb here 1 Will he 
give us the author'' s meaning? According to his own princi- 
ples, he should be able to do it ; and should at once pronounce 
the meaning to be this — his body was immersed or drowned. 
But this is very far from being the author'' s meaning, as any 
one may see by turning to Dan. v. 21, where the whole pas- 
sage reads thus : " and his body (Nebuchadnezzar's) was 
wet or sprinkled with the devj of heaven." There were cer- 
tain idolatrous priests at Athens, called baptai, from 0A7rrce. 
Why was this name given them 1 Mr. Hague must necessa- 
rily say, that they were so called because they had been i?n- 
mersed, or were immersers. But was this the fact 1 We will 
answer this question hereafter. We see^ therefore, that there 
may be sentences, or a fragment of a sentence, as for instance 
that quoted by Mr. Hague, in which the word b^/ its own force 
does not give the author'' s meaning. This fact proves that it 
has more than one specific meaning. 

But if Mr. Hague intended to say this of every complete 
sentence where this word occurs, it is an easy task to show 
his mistake. If his assertion is true of baptizo, it is true of all 
other important words. The principle of philology, then, in- 
volved in his assertion is this, that ivords must determine their 
sense by their own force, or there is no clue to the author^s 
meaning. Let us bring this principle to the test. Take the 
English word bar, which means a rail thrown across a pas- 
sage — an enclosure in a tavern — any obstruction — an enclo- 
sure in a court — an association of lawyers — a line in music, 
&c. All these meanings attach to the word. Now read the 
following line, and say whether the word determines the sense 
by its own force : 

" Must I new bars to my own joys create ?" 

Here we cannot determine, by the simple force of the word, 



110 STRTCTURES ON 

whether bars mean tavern bars, or the enclosure in a court, or 
the rails of a fence, or any obstruction, or a line of music, or 
a company of lawyers. And yet there is no difficulty in getting 
at the author'' s meaning. Mr. Hague complains that our prin- 
ciples of philology " turn order into confusion." But if he can 
have no order in language, till each word has only one specific 
meaning, expressing by its own force a definite proposition, 
he will' not see the chaos of speech reduced to order in 
his day. 

Mr. Hague's unsuccessful attempt to explain away 
OUR Citations from the Classics. 

In order to maintain his position, Mr. Hague must needs 
explain away our examples. Out of the eleven cases cited by 
us, he has selected four, in which he thinks he discovers im- 
mersion. Suppose we grant what he affirms of these four, 
there still remain seven, for whose immersion he makes no 
provision. From the course which he has adopted, we are 
left to infer, that he thought it best to select those examples 
the most susceptible of a plausible evasion, expecting that the 
reader would lose sight of the rest, in the dust raised by his 
criticism. We ask the reader, therefore, to run his eye again 
over those examples in which the inventive fancy of Mr, Hague 
cannot find even a figurative immersion. They are such as 
the following: "the face lathered (baptized) with tawny 
rushes" — "a garment stained (baptized) with blood drawn 
by a sword" — " the hand wet (baptized) by pressing a sub- 
stance, "&c. &c. Out of eleven cases, seven have passed un- 
scathed. 

We now turn to the less fortunate examples. 

" To-day, ye bearers of water, draw up (baptize) none." 
Mr. Hague might have spared his ridicule here, since we 
share it in the good company of his favorite Scapula. Scap- 
ula says that this word is used for — to draw up, and to fill for 



MR. Hague's review. Ill 

drawing up. Mr. Hague confines it to the last of the two 
senses, and says it cannot have the first meaning. We leave 
him to settle the point with his venerated Scapula, reminding 
him, at the same time, that Hesychius and several other 
lexicographers concur with Scapula. 

The next case is the following : — " When it drops upon 
the garments, they are dyed," (baptized.) Mr. Hague labors 
hard to find immersion here. But the garments are dyed, — 
how? By what process ? By dipping? No. Mr. Carson, 
one of the most learned and able writers on Mr. Hague's side 
of the question, generously gives up this example. Hippo- 
crates employs the word, he says, " to denote dying by drop- 
ping the dying liquid on the thing dyed. It is surely not 
dying by dipping." The reader will judge, whether drop- 
ping is dipping, or whether the idea of dipping is to be found 
in a process of dying by dropping ! This case is itself suffi- 
cient to overthrow Mr. Hague's main position. He says that 
the word baptism denotes an action, and that action musi 
necessarily be dipping. He affirms that immersion and bap- 
tism are equivalent terms ; and that the Englishman might as 
well speak of an immersion by sprinkling, as the Greek of a 
baptism by sprinkling. But Hippocrates spoils all this ; for 
he uses baptism to denote a mode of action, which he informs 
us was dropping. This proves that Mr. Hague has yet to 
learn the true import of the word. The English scholar 
could never speak of an immersion by sprinkling ; nor could 
the Greek have spoken of a baptism by sprinkling or drop- 
ping, if Mr. Hague's views of that word were correct. That 
Hippocrates does call a mode of coloring by the dropping of 
the liquid baptism, is conclusive proof that Mr. Hague does 
not understand the word. He would give it limits which it 
spurns. 

The next example is that of ' ' the lake baptized with the 
blood of a mouse.'' We have already introduced Mr. Car- 



112 STRICTURES ON 

SON to the reader. Surely his authority will not be dispu- 
ted. " To suppose that there is -here any allusion to the literal 
immersion or dipping of a lake, says Mr. Carson, is a mon- 
strous perversion of taste. The lake is said to be dyed, not 
to be dipped, or poured, or sprinkled. There is in the vjord no 
reference to the mode. What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric 
is the figure of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse ! 
Never w^as there such a figure. The lake is not said to be 
dipped in blood, but to be dyed with Uoody — Beecher, Art. 
Bib. R., Jan. 1840. (We have no partiality for the entomo- 
logical tribe to which Mr. Hague refers, (see p. 73,) and no 
inclination to share the benefits of their attentions with him 
and the playful student.) — The reader will observe that Mr. 
Carson concedes this example. He allows that the word is 
used here to denote an effect, without reference to the mode 
by which it is produced. But if it may be so used here, why 
not in other places? If Mr. Hague's views respecting the 
word were correct, it could not be used in a single instance 
as Homer here uses it. 

The next case is that of the Sibylline verse. We presume 
Mr. Hague will not stake his reputation as a scholar on the 
assertion, that Swai, by its own force, means to drown. Yet 
he quotes with approbation a loose translation, in which such 
a sense is given. He says, '* this is poetry, and good sense." 
All that may be, and yet not be the meaning of the passage 
in question. The other rendering, he says, is nonsense. 
But is it nonsense to speak of Athens as too buoyant to 
sink? 

Now let the reader judge, whether Mr. Hague has success- 
fully explained away our examples from the classics. Seven 
remain wholly unscathed. Two of the four which he at- 
tempts to wrest from us, his own friend acknowledges to be 
fairly ours. For the other two we feel no anxiety. 

We sought in our essay to make the subject under discus- 



MR. Hague's review. 113 

sion perfectly intelligible to the English reader ; and there- 
fore avoided as much as possible the costume of the schools, 
and quotations from foreign languages. At the same time, 
we designed to base our reasonings on sound philological 
principles. Aware that the advocates for immersion contend 
that the M'ord baptize has but one meaning, and that they rely 
chiefly upon its pagan use, we concluded to give the reader 
a few quotations from pagan writers, showing that, even 
among them, it designated different modes of applying a 
liquid. We might have added others. The sense of ^o dye is 
very extensively given to (^ciTrrco. Compounded with other 
words, it denotes a dyer, a dye-house, a dying-vat, &c. As 
a compound, it is used in the sense of gilding, or coloring 
with gold. The priests at Athens, called baptai, " were so 
called from, ^atttco, to tinge or paint, because, like women, they 
tinged their faces with paint." In Arrian — Expedition of 
Alexander:- — Tovc Si Traymat Xiyu l<iicip)(^oi on ^aTrravTcH IvSoi : 
" Nearchus relates that the Indians dye their beards." Mr. 
Carson admits that they did not dye their beards by immer- 
sion. — Bib. R., Jan. 1840, Although the reader has before 
him sufficient proof, that the word is capable of denoting more 
than one mode of applying a liquid, we request him to peruse 
carefully the following 

Letter from Edward Beecher, D. D., President of Illi- 
nois College, Jacksonville, Illinois. 

Rev. Jos. H. Towne. 

Dear Brother, — With your request that I would notice the 
remarks of Mr. Hague on myself, and also that I would fur- 
nish you with certain facts and authorities, of which I spoke 
I cheerfully comply. 

The design of Mr. Hague's remarks on me is, to produce 
the belief that I have been inexcusably inaccurate in the state- 



114 STRICTURES ON 

ment of plain scripture facts, through ignorance or forgetful- 
ness. His words are, — " This is something like a statement 
which President Beecher, of Illinois, has ventured to make on 
the same subject. He says, ' Nor is the washing of the 
clothes, so-often spoken of, enjoined by a word denoting im- 
mersion.' Now for the refutation of this, just turn to Num- 
bers xxxi. 21, 23. ' This is the ordinance of the law which 
the Lord commanded Moses. Every thing that may abide 
the fire ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be 
clean ; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sep- 
aration ; and all that abideth not the fire, ye shall make go 
through the water.'' Now this passage has been in the Bible 
ever since these writers were boys, and how is it, that, to all 
intents and purposes, they never saw if?" 

To his concluding question I reply, that, to all intents and 
purposes, I had seen and thoroughly examined it, before I 
made the assertion, which he has ventured to controvert ; and 
of my position it contains no refutation at all : — for, 

1. It does not contain the command to wash the clothes to 
which I refer ; — and, 

2. If it did, it contains no word denoting immersion. 

3. The command, to which I did refer, occurs in the very 
next verse, and fully sustains my assertion ; and yet this 
Mr. Hague did not venture to quote. 

1. The passage refers to the purification of the spoils taken 
from an enemy. It does not relate to " the washing of the 
clothes so often spoken of." This was the washing of a 
person's own clothes. Moreover, it is not a specific com- 
mand to wash clothes at all, but a general command to cause 
that to pass through the water which will not stand the fire. If 
he says this includes clothes, I reply, it just as much includes 
books and parchment, for they will not stand the fire ; and 
will Mr. Hague therefore call it a command to wash books and 
parchment, &c. ? 



MR. Hague's review. 115 

The plain fact is, it is not a specific command to wash any- 
thing- by nam.e ; and yet I was speaking of a specific com- 
mand to wash clothes by name, and nothing else. Again, 
this command is not one oft repeated — it occurs nowhere else. 
The washing of the clothes to which I refer, I characterized 
as " often spoken of." How, then, does this passage refute my 
assertion? It does not even touch it. Again, if it were the 
command to wash clothes to which I refer, yet still it con- 
tains no word denoting immersion. Does the word l^^, to 
pass, to go, denote immersion ? Does its Hiphil form, to 
cause to pass, denote immersion? Mr. Hague may reply, 
that the phrase to cause to pass through water denotes im- 
mersion. Very well, so it does ; and when I ever deny it, 
then let him quote this passage against me. But I have done 
no such thing. I spoke of a word in which an oft-repeated 
injunction is given, and mentioned the identical word, viz., 
D^^j and affirmed that it did not denote immersion. And 
is it a refutation of this, to adduce a complex phrase, implying 
immersion merely by an adjunct, but in which the leading 
verb does not mean to immerse at all, but only to pass ? If we 
say that a bird passes through the air, it implies flying, by force 
of an adjunct ; does the word to pass therefore mean to fly ? 

But why did Mr. Hague omit the command to wash their 
own clothes, which occurs in the next verse? Here would 
have been a case in point. It is a specific command to wash 
clothes, and not a general command to purify spoils. It is an 
instance of the command to which I referred as oft repeated, 
and it contains the word specified. And will Mr. Hague 
venture to deny the truth of my assertion concerning it ? Af- 
ter all, it seems to me that the venturing is on his side, not 
on mine. He has ventured to assail a plain truth, which no 
man can disprove or reasonably deny. 

Of the authorities and facts to which I referred, there are 
many besides those which I have already adduced in my arti- 



116 STRICTURES ON 

cles on baptism, and which I propose to employ in my conclud- 
ing article. But, at your request, I will adduce at this time 
a few\ 

A passage in Clement of Alexandria deserves particular 
notice, as settling beyond dispute the position that those to 
whom the Greek was vernacular did regard lldLVTi^a as sig- 
nifying to purify, irrespetive of mode. It occurs Strom, book 4, 
p. 531 : Paris, 1641. Speaking of the true gnostic, i. e., one 
who has the true knowledge of God, he is led to speak of 
purity as essential in order to see God ; and this leads, by a 
natural transition, to the rites denoting purification. He then 
remarks, that an idea of such modes of purification may have 
proceeded from Moses to the heathen poets, thus — Ka< Sa kai 

TroinrAig iJi 7ra>;. 

ESo; TOl'TO. ZovS'AlUVf wf V-dLl T3 fTCXkUtli; ITTl XCiTM fidLTTTl^iT^At. 

He here states, that that may be an image or resemblance of 
baptism, which has been handed down from Moses to the 
poets. He then illustrates it by two instances : — Penelope 
washed herself and put on clean apparel, and went to her de- 
votions. Telemachus icashed his hands in the ocean, and 
prayed to Minerva. He then adds, this loas the custom of the 
Jews, that they should be often baptized upon their 
COUCHES. To denote washing. Homer uses CJ'^Aiva ; to denote 
washing the hands, vt^ra. Here I propose to any intelligent 
and candid Greek scholar the following inquiries : — 

1. Is not CS-^^tvce a generic word to denote washing or puri- 
fication'? Is ii not as generic as Ka.Bu^i^a'^ 

2. Dare any one say that vitttco denotes immersion? Is 
washing of the hands immersion ? 



MR. Hague's review. 117 

3. In these instances Clement says there is an image or 
resemblance of baptism. Of purification there is an image ; 
but v/hat image or resemblance is there of immersion ? 

4. Our credulity has been sorely taxed by the demand to 
believe, that couches were habitually immersed by the Jews ; 
yes, by all the Jews ; — shall we go one step farther, and 
affirm that it was their custom frequently to be immersed upon 
their couches ? shall we believe that they had baptisteries be- 
low their couches, and an apparatus of ropes and pullies, for 
elevating and depressing men, couches, and all 1 and that they 
were in the habit of doing this frequent!]/ in the course of one 
meal ? 

5. What then does the passage mean? Plainly, that they 
reclined on their couches, and often ivashed their hands during 
their meals. This is a matter of history and of fact. The 
other interpretation is ridiculous and absurd. Now the wash- 
ing of the hands is a purification. The Psalmist says, I 
will wash my hands in innocency. Pilate desired to declare 
his freedom from guilt by washing his hands before the mul- 
titude. But the washing of hands is no immersion. Tho 
conclusion is inevitable that /3:t/rT<(^a) here denotes to purify^, 
not to immerse. 

I will now state the general fact that both the Latin and 
Greek fathers, under the words ^■xn^vii^u and ^Aimt^^fxAra., do 
include not only the washing of the body and hands in any 
way, but also the sprinklings and expiations, not only of the 
Mosaic ritual, but of the whole heathen world. Of this 
in my next article I shall give ample proof; there is not room 
for it in detail here. I will only add, as to (^ctTrTic^m, a single 
passage from Justin Martyr, relating to spiritual purifi- 
cation. 

" What is the benefit," says he, " of that baptism which 
cleanses the flesh and the flesh alone ? Ba.7r'naB»Te tuv ^''/C^^' 
ATTo r»5 opyi)( KAi etTTO Trhiovi^iAs cLTTO (fQovcu, a.?ro fAiTovg kcli iS'au to 



118 STRICTURES ON 

Translate this — be purified as to your soul from wrath, 
covetousness, envy, and hatred, and Lo your body is pure — 
and all see the sense and feel its beauty. But who, that was 
not violently pressed to support a theory, would ever venture 
to use the barbarous expression, be immersed as to your soul 
from wrath, &c., and Lo your body is pure ? 

I will add two instances of the use of /SacTTae. In book 4, 
lines 156, 157, of the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius, 
occurs the most remarkable case of immersion or dipping on 
record, if it is true that &iL7r'rm always means to dip. The 
subject of the immersion was the HUGE DRAGON who 
guarded the golden fleece ; the immerser, Medea ; and that 
into which the dragon was immersed, a juniper branch. The 
facts of the case are these : — As Medea and Jason approach, 
the HUGE SERPENT raises himself up in vast coils, rising 
like volumes of smoke above volumes of smoke in some vast 
conflagration. Medea then sings her incantations, and relaxes 
his sinews ; he throws himself forward and extends himself 
in huge folds — with uplifted head seeking to devour them. 
Medea then resorts to a soporific mixture in a cup, or goblet, 
and, in the words of the poet, 

BctTTTov;^ iH, KVKiccvo; ctm^AT* cpxgfjiitK a.otS'a.ti 
'Pcttvs xstr' ()(^B^\/!xm- 

That is, {if ^ATrree means dip, or immerse,) she, immersing 
him, with or in a newly cut juniper bough, sprinkled strong 
soporific poisons with songs upon his eyes ; and thus put him 
to sleep. Here I inquire — Did Medea, according to the poet, 
take up this HUGE SERPENT ? This was plainly neces- 
sary to dip or immerse him. How could she dip or immerse 
him in a cup, or in a juniper bough, or with hi If she did 
immerse him, it must have been done by sprinkling, for the 
poet expressly asserts that she sprinkled her soporific poi- 
sons on him. Will our immersing brethren then admit, that 



MR. Hague's- REVIEW. 119 

we can immerse by sprinkling, from a cup, with a branch ? If 
so, then all controversy is at an end ; for we are all willing 
to immerse by sprinkling. 

Now in this case the facts are undeniable. The subject 
was a VAST SERPENT. Medea took a bough of juniper, 
and sprinkled him with it, from a soporific mixture, in a cup. 
To describe this operation, the poet uses ^cltttu and fciivo). If 
this is immersion, all will admit that it is the most remarkable 
case on record ; and performed in the most remarkable way. 

But the Greek scholiast sees no immersion here. His words 
are — ev tovtoi; Kcti roic i(^i^)ii <pna-i thv Mjjcfs.'stv iTn^f^divovcntv apKivBo) 
TO (^st^/uLUKov KoifAio-sLt Tov tfgijt.ovTct j that Is, In thcsc and the fol- 
lowing words the poet says, that Medea, sprinhlmg the poi- 
son, with the juniper branch, put the dragon to sleep. And 
the editor illustrates it by a reference to the passage in Vir- 
gil, in which tiit; gud uf aiyep shaKes a Dough, moistened with 
Lethean water, over the temples of Palinurus, and puts him 
to sleep. 

The second case is from Lucien. Speaking of dying pur- 
ple, with the shell-fish called ^rcgc^wgjt, he says, J'uva.ra.t ya^ 

^OLTTTilV OVK ia-BliaBdLl /UOVOV TO THf TTOgCpy^Stf KgiU-C- That Is, (If 

fisLTTTce means to immerse or dip,) the flesh of the shell-fish can 
not only be eaten, but can also dip or immerse!! Dip or im- 
merse what ? and how can flesh dip or immerse anything ? 
Translate it " can not only be eaten, but also color or dye,'''' 
and all is plain. 

As to LEXICONS — I have examined with care five made by 
writers of the Greek language, in which their definitions are 
in Greek — ^I refer to Suidas, Hesychius, Zonaras, Phavo- 
rinus, and the Etymologicum Gudianum, and in none of 

THEM IS THE SENSE IMMERSE GIVEN EITHER TO ^dTnoo OR ^cltt- 

T.'ifft). Zonaras gives full definitions of the ecclesiastical usage 
of j^dLTTTi^a), all of which sustain the position that it denotes 
sacrificial purification, i. e., the remission of sins; yea, he 



120 STRICTURES ON 

expressly so defines it — u<ptTn afxa^rtcev S'l vS'ato; kui Trnvf^ctrot— 
the forgiveness of sins by water and the Spirit ; and what is 
this but sacrificial purification, or Ka8ag/o-/uoc ? And Phavori- 
nus follows him exactly in this. 

I have now only to ask — what is the highest authority on 
this subject, the opinions of modern critics, or of those who 
spoke and wrote the Greek as their vernacular tongue ? 

Our immersing brethren are fond of claiming " all the learn- 
ing of modern Europe" as on their side. I do not admit the 
truth of their claim. But if I did, I would only reply. Before 
their tribunal I refuse to stand. I appeal from them to those 
whose decision must be final — the original writers of the 
Greek tongue. 

And, as a friend, I would advise our immersing brethren to 
cease from using the oft-repeated thunder of great names, and 
to app82.1 directly to the v/ritin<j;s of the Greek fathers, and 
other writers of ecclesiastical Greek. I, for one, am perfectly 
willing to abide the result. 

I am yours aflfectionately, 

E. Beecher. 

Clemens Alexandrinus, to whom Pres. Beecher refers, was 
one of the fathers of the church, distinguished for learning 
and eloquence. He was born A. D. 217. The examples 
cited in the above letter are decisive. We call the attention 
of Mr. Hague to them particularly. Will he inform us, and 
the public generally, in what manner Medea immersed the 
dragon with a juniper bough? This he must do, or abandon 
his position. Here is a clear case of « baptism by sprinkling. 
With this example before him, will Mr. Hague presume to say 
that bapto admits of but one mode of applying a liquid? As 
well might he contend that our English word travel specifies but 
one mode of going from place to place ; or that our word ivash 
specifies but one mode of using water. And let it be distinctly 
understood, that to multiply instances where the word denotes 



MR. HAGUE S REVIEW. 121 

an immersion can avail Mr. Hague nothing. "What if we 
should give the reader ten thousand examples in which our 
word wash is used of an immersion — would all this prove that 
it cannot signify other modes of using water 1 The examples 
alrea-dy adduced, prove beyond all doubt that baptize has not 
the determinate meaning of immerse. 

Examples from the Old Testament and Apocryphal 

Writers. 

Our citations from the Old Testament and the apocryphal 
writers bring us to the same conclusion. See page 9. These 
examples Mr. Hague has passed over without notice. He 
has preferred to fill his space with certain fanciful illustrations 
and unsupposable suppositions. The case of the officer is 
not worthy of a serious answer. No man could ever suppose 
that orders to sail to Nova Scotia required him to move 
through the air like a bird, or a kite, or the moon. There is 
but one mode of sailing common among men. Mr. Hague's 
illustration, therefore, is not in point. We will furnish our 
reader with one more to the purpose. Suppose an individual 
to receive orders to travel to Nova Scotia. He goes to his 
books to learn what to travel means, and finds that to travel 
signifies to walk, to ride on horseback, to sail in a steamboat, 
to ride in a rail-car, &c. What then? Is he perplexed ? Is 
he in doubt what to do 1 By no means. He sees that the 
command is of such a nature that it may be obeyed in divers 
vjays. It commands him to go to the place specified, but de- 
termines nothing as to the mode of travelling. An individual 
is commanded to wash. Now because there are divers ways 
of washing, and no one way is specified, is the command unin- 
telligible ? Certainly not. All which he is required to do, is 
simply to wash, the mode of washing not being essential to 
obedience. And if the word baptize, in its application to the 
Christian rite, is used in the generic sense of cleansing or 
purifying, there is no difficulty in discovering what is essen- 



122 STRICTURES ON 

tial to a due observance of it, although no one mode of cleans- 
ing is specified. The very fact that no one mode is specified, 
only proves that the essence of the rite consists in the use of 
clean water, and not in the mode of using it. 

But to test still further Mr. Hague's principle of holding 
sacred words to one sense only, and that the classic, let us 
take the word n-mfxa. Its first meaning is wind — and then 
others, such as breath, the soul, the temper of the mind, and 
the Spirit of God, all come, by implication or analogy, from 
the primary meaning. If Mr. Hague will treat this word as 
he does baptize, and insist upon the primary classic significa- 
tion, he will give us some ludicrous specimens of philology. 
He must then interpret the phrase, " he gave up the ghost," 
he gave up the loind. "The poor in spirit" must then be 
poor in wind. "In spirit and in truth," according to Mr. 
Hague, is m twW and in truth. "Paul determined in his 
mind" must read — Paul determined in his ivind. " The spirit 
of meekness" we must understand as the ivind of meekness. 
Who will tell us in what particulars this fails of being a fair 
carrying out of Mr. Hague's main principle of philology — the 
principle on which the whole matter in dispute turns'? 

Mr. Hague defies us to cope with Universalists on our prin- 
ciples, and goes on to tell us what absurd things they say 
about the word Aimiov, as though we were answerable for 
their perversions. But has he seen no successful arguments 
against Universalists by Pedobaptist writers 1 And yet, let us 
ask, did he ever see one that adopted his theory of one mean- 
ing and one only .? We have never heard Professor Stuart's 
argument on the meaning of aiav ever objected to by Immer- 
sers, on the ground that he classifies the different meanings 
of the word. And did INIr. Hague ever try his principle 
of one meaning and one only, in a discussion with Uni- 
versalists ? The very point for which the Universalists con- 
tend respecting the word ysmrt (hell) is this, — that it is used 
in its primary sense of the Valley of Hinnom. Grant them 



MR. Hague's review. 123 

this, and their proof that there is no hell, (so far as this word 
is concerned,) is complete. Yes, and Mr. Hague should 
have reflected, that the very word aiav, (ag-e,) w'hich he se- 
lects, if interpreted by his principle of strictly adhering to 
what is called the primary meaning, and making that alone 
the meaning, would be jdelding the point entire to Universal- 
ists, so far as that word is concerned. Indeed, what he wishes 
us to do with baptizo, is just the thing which Universalists do 
with every word in dispute between them and us. His refer- 
ence to Universalists was, therefore, very unfortunate for him. 
But to return from this digression to the matters which he 
has passed over. We quoted examples of the use of the word 
in the Old Testament, and in the Apocrypha, in which baptize 
is used in a sense diiFerent from that of immerse. These Mr. 
Hague has not noticed. We then went to the New Testa- 
ment, and selected examples, in which the word is applied to 
other things besides the religious rite. We thought it more 
important to settle the Bible use, than the pagan use of the 
term. But to this part of our work he makes no distinct 
reference. He does, in the beginning, say of the baptism of 
cups and couches, and of the Pharisaic washing of hands, that 
he shall show that they were immersions. But where he re- 
deems his promise, we cannot discover. In one case he refers 
us to Calmet for proof that beds can be immersed : we have 
not found in Calmet any such proof, but much of a contrary 
nature. In connection with this point he quotes a Jewish rule 
as to ceremonial bathing, required by the law, to show, we 
suppose, that when the Pharisees* observed their uncom- 
manded custom of washing hands, they immersed themselves 
all over ; and then asks if a Jewish Rabbi is not better au- 
thority than a New England clergyman. Does he expect to 
satisfy clear and honest minds by such means 1 . No ; let it be 
well understood, that our examples to show that the Bible use 

* As to the custom of the Pharisees, see Pres. Beecher's Letter, 
page 115. 



124 STRICTURES ON 

of the term, when not applied to the rite, are clearly against 
immersion, and that Mr. Hague has not made an attempt to 
show the contrary, which requires an answer. 

John's Baptism. 

Our remarks under this head, in our first treatise, we wish 
the reader to peruse again, in connection with what Mr. H. 
has said in reply. He sneers at our computation of the num- 
bers baptized by John. The words of the evangelist are — 
*' And there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and 
the region round about Jordan." These terms, literally un- 
derstood, imply that more than a million flocked to John's 
baptism. We put it down at 500,000, as the least that could 
have been intended. This, Mr. Hague treats as ridiculous. 
We leave the reader to judge, whether he has met the point, 
as a fair reasoner, conscious of the strength of his positions. 
He also ridicules our translation of many loaters at Enon. 
As there is no refuting a sneer, we will not argue this point 
with him. We will rather quote a few suggestions from 
Professor Stuart, whom Mr. Hague lauds so much, as one ol 
* ' those venerable veterans in theology. ' ' Now this same venera- 
ble veteran in theology says of this phrase, vfxra. ttowa — " It 
has always seemed to me a very singular mode of expression, 
to designate the former idea," i. e., that the waters were 
abundant, and deep, so as to be convenient for immersing. 
"Why not say, because the water was deep, or abundant, 
simply ? A single brook, of very small capacity, but still a 
living stream, might, with scooping out a small place in the 
sand, answer most abundantly all the purposes of baptism, in 
case it were performed by immersion, and answer them just 
as well as many waters could. But, on the other hand, a 
single brook would not suffice for the accommodation of the 
great multitudes who flocked to John." 

"But let us now see what the idiom of the language de- 



MR. HAGUE S REVIEW. 1S5 

mands. In Matt. iii. 16, Mark i. 10, water designates the 
river Jordan. In Acts viii. 36 — 39, it is left uncertain by the 
text whether a stream or fountain of water is meant. In 
Rev. viii. 12, a ' third part of the ivaters,^ refers both to the 
rivers and fountains of water, that had just been mentioned, 
and so of, of the ivafers in the same verse. In Rev. xvii. 1, 
the angel says to John, ' I will show thee the punishment of 
the great harlot, who sitteth on m«ny waters, i. e., many 
streams or rivers of w^ater. In xvii. 15, the same phrase and 
idea is repeated. In Rev. xxii. 1, we find the expression, river 
of water of life, which in Rev. xxii. 17 is referred to, and called 
the water of life. In Rev. i, 15, xiv. 2, xix. 0, we have the 
expression, voice of many waters, which in two of the pas- 
sages is followed" by the expression, as the voice of thunder. 
Now it is the weaves of the sea, probably, to which the writer 
here alludes. But these waves of the sea are successive, and^ 
so to speak, different, and broken masses of water ; not one 
continuous mass, deep and abundant. The simple idea of 
depth and abundance would not give birth to the conception 
of many waters. It is the movement, the division, the succes- 
sion, and the motion, which form the ground of this idea." 

"Of the evangelists, only Matthew and Mark use JdVg in 
the plural. Matthew employs it four times, viz., xiv. 28, 
29, viii. 32, vii. 15. In the three former instances it desig- 
nates the waters, as we say in the lake of Tiberias. In the 
latter it probably means different or various streams or foun- 
tains of water. In this last sense, Mark employs it in the 
only example in which the plural is used in his gospel, ix. 22. 
No other example of the plural occurs, till we come to the 
Apocalypse. Here, as we have seen, the waters or waves of 
the ocean are designated, in three instances, and in nine in- 
stances, fountains and streams of water are designated. No 
example then can be brought in the New Testament of the 
application of vSctTo. to designate merely quantity of water, 
simply considered as deep and abounding," 



12B STRICTURES ON 

Thus our own remarks on this subject are more than sus- 
tained. If the reader will read them again, and compare them 
with Mr. H.'s suggestions, he cannot fail to see where the 
truth of this matter lies. 

Baptism of Christ. 

Under this head, Mr. H. has said little that would be cal- 
culated to detract from the force of our remarks. The pas- 
sage of scripture on which he relies to " sweep all away,''^ is 
this — " It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of 
which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." 
" Here," continues Mr. Hague, " the apostle asserts, that no 
statute of the Mosaic law touched the priesthood of Christ, 
who pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave atten- 
dance at the altar." Is it a fact, or do our eyes deceive us? 
Has Mr. H. thua penned a denial of the priestlioud \j£ Christ, 
in thus perverting the text of Paul? We have, for some 
time, noticed a growing disposition among Immersers to quote, 
as of special weight in this controversy, the opinions of Ger- 
man writers, who, in order to expunge the doctrine of the 
atonement from the gospel, seek to exclude from the rite of 
baptism the symbolical sprinkling of the blood of atonement. 
But we were not prepared to expect that Mr. Hague would 
deny the priesthood of Christ, in order to make out that he 
was immersed. This seems too great a sacrifice to carry so 
small a point. 

But charity would hope that he does not mean so much, 
though he says it. Suppose he means only to say, that as 
Christ was a priest, not after the order of Aaron, but after 
that of Melchizedek, he required no ceremony of induction to 
office, i. e., no public introduction and manifestation to the 
people, in his official character. Then the express words of 
John should settle the question, who tells us that the great 
purpose of his own ministry was to usher in that of Christ, 
and manifest him to Israel in his official character : " I knew 



MR. Hague's review. 127 

him not, lut that he should be made manifest to Israel, there" 
fore I am come baptizing with ivater.^^ 

Mr. H. intimates that the ceremony of Christ's baptism did 
not correspond with that of the induction of priests. But we 
ask wh^t material circumstance was wanting? There was 
certainly the washing with vv^ater ; and as to the clothing with 
priestly robes and anointing with oil, the two other parts of 
the ceremony — the voice from heaven speaking to the ear 
what the ceremonial investiture by robes spoke to the eye — 
and the visible pouring upon him of the Holy Spirit, actually 
accomplishing what all typical unctions had prefigured — - 
these were even more than answering the demands of the 
ritual law. As all the Jewish ritual was typical of Christ, 
what fact or circumstance relating to him could have been 
typifi.ed by the typical priest's induction to office, if not 
Christ's own induction to office 1 And as the type of the pass- 
over terminated in the real offering of the sacrificial Lamb ; 
was it not fitting, that the type of priestly ordination should 
terminate in the real ordination of the real Priest, over the 
house of God? 'This truth stands out with the clearness of a 
sunbeam, by the collected light of both the Old Testament 
and the New. 

Baptism of the Three Thousand. 

Mr. H. thinks there was water in Jerusalem convenient for 
immersing three thousand in a fraction of a day, because there 
was enough to stand a siege. But water in wells might an- 
swer all the purposes of standing a siege, and yet not be very 
convenient for immersing. He tells us that Chrysostom im- 
mersed three thousand in one day. But as he gives no 
authority for so incredible a fact, and as we have found so 
many of his other statements worse than apocryphal, and as 
the thing in itself is impossible, we must be excused for say- 
ing that we do not believe it. 



128 strictures on 

Baptism of the Ethiopian. 

His sugg-estion as to the phrase, in Isaiah lii. 15,— 
"sprinkle many nations," would probably not have been 
made, if the note which appeared in our second edition had 
been before him when he wrote. Since publishing that note, 
we have had the curiosity to consult all the Hebrew lexicons 
that have fallen in our way, and we find that only one out of 
the whole gives the least countenance to the rendering of the 
Seventy. Mr. H. says " Gesenius sanctions it, and throws 
light on its origin." But how and why does he sanction it ? 
The only sanction which he gives it, and the only light which 
he throws on its origin, is just to say, that the Seventy in that 
passage so render it. And for that reason he numbers the 
sense o^ astonish among its meanings — thus, " To cause to leap 
for joy or admiration. So, perhaps, Isa. — So shall he cause 
many nations to wonder at him. — Sept." — And why does he 
give it even this equivocal sanction 1 Because he wishes to ex- 
clude from the Bible, as far as he can, the idea of Christ's 
sprinkling the nations with his blood. Hence he sanctions the 
error of the Seventy, so far as he can without risking his own 
credit as a scholar, and no farther. Mr. H. should be a little 
more cautious of following in the wake of German neologists. 
But we see from the late forth-puttings of Newton Seminary, 
that the malaria from Germany is to spread its visitations 
upon the immersing denomination, and we fear to a greater 
extent than it has done with us ; from the fact that neologists 
find declaring for immersion to be a convenient way of evad 
ing evangelical doctrines, and because, from their countenanc- 
ing immersion, their writings are, in what Immersers regard 
a main point, peculiarly acceptable. But we hope that, in 
all their immersings, they will not be completely immersed in 
neology. A sprinkling of it has been quite enough for us. 

But to return to the subject of Hebrew lexicons on Isa. 
lii. We have consulted Castellus' Heptaglott Lexicon ; also 



I 



MR. Hague's review. 129 

the Pentaglott, and Robertson's and Pagninus' and Buxtorf s ; 
and none of them give such a meaning as that of astonish to 
the word. The Pentaglott gives the meaning of sprinkle to 
the word in that passage. It gives also the meaning of the 
word in the Targums, and the cognate words in Chaldee and 
Arabic. So utterly groundless is the conceit, that that word, 
in every other place rendered properly, should here mean to 
astonish. Mr. Hague's suggestion that the eunuch read from 
the Seventy, we have already refuted. If he did read from 
that copy, he had an inspired teacher, who could give him the 
true meaning. It is really of no consequence, therefore, 
whether he read from the Seventy or not. 

In confirmation of what we said respecting the absence of 
such water as was suitable for the immersion of the eunuch, 
let us bring the testimony of Eusebius. Treating of Hebrew 
topography, under the word Bedsour, he says — " There was 
a spring in the village of Bethsoron, twenty miles distant 
from Jerusalem, flowing from a mountain, in which the Ethi- 
opian was baptized." This testimony is specially important, 
as it was written at an early period, when the truth in the 
case must have been known. Pococke testifies that the spring 
was to be seen in his day, i. e. two hundred years ago. Thus 
vanishes the last semblance of proof that the eunuch was 
immersed. 

The Lord's Supper and Baptism. 

In attempting to discredit our principles of philology, Mr. 
Hague says that any one would be justified on the ground of 
them to drop the sacramental wine on his hand, and absorb it 
through his skin, and contend that in so doing he obeyed the 
command of our Lord — " Drink ye all of it." We should be 
very sorry to encourage such an evasion of a plain precept. 
But Mr. Hague's illustration fails for want of relevancy 
There is but one mode of drinking common among men. Men 
never drink through the skin of the hand. The command to 
drink, therefore, is a specific command, to receive the liquid" 



130 STRICTURES ON 

into the mouth and swallow it. Men drink in no other way. 
There are, however, divers modes of baptizing. The dragon 
was not baptized in the same way with the ship to which Mr. 
Hague alludes ; nor was the baptism practised by the Jews, 
ivhile lying on their couches, like that administered to the naked 
candidates of the ancient church. According to customary 
usage, the word drink limits a man to one mode of receiving 
a liquid, that is, he must receive it through the mouth ; the 
word baptize, on the other hand, admits of several ways of 
applying a liquid. Hence Mr. Hague's illustration is totally 
irrelevant. As he has alluded to the Lord's Supper, however, 
we will take the opportunity to test his principles. Suppose 
we should do the same with the word supper that he does 
with the word baptism. Then because deipnon (supper) pri- 
marily denotes a full meal, taken about the middle of the 
afternoon, and usually accompanied with excess and revel- 
lings, we must understand (according to Mr. Hague's princi- 
ples) the command to observe the Lord's Supper, as enjoin- 
ing upon us the duty of doing just what the Greeks were 
accustomed to do at the meal designated by this word. This 
was an error into which the Corinthian Greeks fell, and for 
which Paul sharply reproved them. See 1 Cor. xi. When 
words are taken from a common use and applied to a sacred 
rite, they must have a shade of meaning somewhat different 
from their ordinary signification. See page 10. Those, how- 
ever, who insist on plunging because they think the original 
word classically signifies to plunge, should, for a like reason, 
insist upon eating a full meal at the Lord's table. Our im- 
mersing brethren have only to treat deipnon as they treat 
baptize, and the Lord's table would immediately present a 
novel and disgusting scene. 

The Opinions and Practice of the Earlier Ages of 
THE Church. 

Our limits will admit of only a few remarks under this 
head ; and yet these few may throw back some light upon the 



MR. Hague's review. 131 

question discussed in the preceding pages. Let it be under- 
stood that we distinguish between the apostolic and the prim- 
itive church. That immersion was not practised by the apos- 
tles, we have clearly shown, so far as a demonstration of the 
absence of all evidence can prove a negative proposition. In 
the ages succeeding them, it was no doubt the general mode 
of baptism. But it was never practised exclusively. 
During a period of many centuries, sprinkling was held to be 
valid baptism by the great body of Christians ; and evidences 
of its practice are to be found in the testimony of the most 
distinguished men, reaching back to the earliest historical 
ages of the church. Let the reader consult Erasmus, Zan- 
chius, Calvin, Martin Bucer, Thomas Aquinas, Gratian, Ber- 
nard, and the writers generally of the sixteenth, fifteenth, 
fourteenth, thirteenth, twelfth and eleventh centuries, and he 
will find ample testimony to this fact. Walfriedus Strabo 
A. D. 850 — the venerable Bede, A. D. €70 — Aurelius Pru- 
dentius, A. D. 390 — severally speak of sprinkling as valid 
baptism. Prudentius represents John as baptizing by pouring. 
In the year 337, Constantine the Great was baptized by sprink 
ling. The fathers of the third and fourth centuries, Gregory 
Nazianzen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, Lactantius, beai 
witness in various ways to the practice and validity of sprink- 
ling. Cyprian was constituted bishop of Carthage in 248 
This distinguished bishop could not have been ignorant of the 
opinions and practice of the church at that early period. 
Speaking of some who were baptized by sprinkling, he quotes 
the prophet Ezekiel, (Ez. xxxvi. 25,) "I will sprinkle clean 
water upon you, and ye shall be clean;" and then adds — 
'''■Hence it appears that sprinUmg is of equal validity with the 
salutary hath.''' — Op., Lib. 2, Epis. 7. Is not the authority 
of Cyprian of more weight in this controversy than that of a 
' ' New England clergyman 1 ' ' Origen and Tertullian both lived 
within one hundred years of the apostles ; and they unitedly 
testify to the practice and validity of baptism by affusion or 



132 STRICTURES ON 

sprinkling. The same may be said of Clemens Alex- 
andrinus and Irenaeus, the first of whom lived within fift)'' 
years of the apostles, and the last of whom was born about the 
time the beloved John fell asleep. Such are the facts. It 

WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER THE REFORMATION, IN THE SIXTEENTH 
CENTURY, THAT ANY SECT OF CHRISTIANS CONSIDERED IM- 
MERSION AS ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 

The question now very naturally occurs. What was the 
occasion of the beginning and prevalence of immersion ? The 
modern advocates for exclusive immersion take it for granted 
that the early Christians practised this mode because they believed 
the original ivord rendered it imperatively necessary. But this 
position is wholly untenable. There are many considerations, 
which conclusively prove that the practice in question origi- 
nated in no such belief. 

1. It is not necessary to suppose such a belief, to account 
for the prevalence of the practice. 

2. The word has no such restricted meaning, but is used 
of divers modes of applying a liquid, as has been clearly 
proved. The English scholar would as soon limit our word 
go to some one mode of travelling, as the ancient fathers limit 
baptize to one mode of using water. 

3. Every fact which proves that the fathers did not consider 
immersion essential, proves also that they did not understand 
the word as requiring immersion. If they had understood 
Christ as saying, in so many w^ords, " go and immerse," they 
must have insisted on that one mode as essential. But they 
never considered it as essential. 

4. That the early fathers did not consider the word as a 
synonyme of immersion, is evident from the fact that they 
speak of sprinkling as baptism. Mr. Hague could not speak 
of sprinkling as baptism. He believes that baptism is pre- 
cisely equivalent to our English word immersion. For Mr. 
Hague, therefore, to call sprinkling baptism, would be as ab- 
surd as to call sprinkling immersion. But the fathers could 



MR. Hague's review. 133 

speak of sprinkling as baptism ; and they felt not Mr. Hague's 
difficulty, for the plain reason, that their views of the import 
of the word were radically different from his. 

5. The fathers never base an argument for immersion on 
the import of the word. This is a very remarkable fact. The 
modern advocates of exclusive immersion rest their argument 
almost entirely upon the v/ord. The word is immerse, they 
say, and therefore we must immerse. But there is nothing 
like this to be found in the writings of the ancient fathers. 
Why did they not take the same position with modern Im- 
mersers 1 Because they held altogether different views. Why 
did they not defend immersion on philological grounds'? Be- 
cause they knew that on such grounds it could not be de- 
fended. 

6. The fathers and early Christians used the word in a 
sense as indeterminate as our word wash, and in instances 
where there could have been no immersion. They speak of 
the shedding of blood as baptism — of the baptism of tears — 
of baptism by martyrdom, &c. 

7. The fathers expressly state that the power of baptism 
does not depend on the quantity of water used. 

8. It is abundantly evident from their writings, that they 
understood baptize, in its application to the Christian rite, in 
some generic sense, which left the mode of using the water 
undefined. 

9. They themselves practised immersion, sprinkling, and 
affusion. 

In view of these facts, we are not at liberty to take it for 
granted that the fathers immersed, because they believed that 
^ATTTi^co means only to immerse. Indeed, it is quite clear that 
they were not led to adopt this form of baptism by any such 
belief. If such an understanding of the word had been the 
source of their practice, their practice would have been always 
uniform. They never could have used the word to denote 
divers modes of applying a liquid. With them it must then 



134 STRICTURES ON 

have carried invariably the sense of immersion. They never 
could have called sprinkling baptism, if they had considered 
that vs^ord a synonyme of immersion. Since, therefore, their 
practice was not uniform ; since they were accustomed to 
employ 0*7rTt^co in cases where the idea of immersion was not 
involved ; since they called sprinkling baptism, and acknow- 
ledged its validity, — we are under the necessity of looking to 
something distinct from the word as the source of their prac- 
tice. That they held no sentiments respecting this word in 
common with the modern advocates of exclusive immersion, is 
absolutely certain. How, then, shall we account for the in- 
troduction and prevalence of this form of baptism in the early 
ages of the church 1 There are three causes assigned by 
Pres. Beecher, which are amply sufficient to solve the mys- 
tery. 1. Oriental usages, and the habits of warmer regions. 

2. A false interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12. 

3. A very early habit of ascribing peculiar virtue to external 
forms. See Bib. R., Vol. V., Jan. 1841. 

We showed in our former treatise, that in those scripture 
baptisms which took place near a stream, the parties stepped 
into the stream /or affusion. Now a people accustomed to bath- 
ing, and in those warm climates where Christianity first began 
to plant her churches and administer her ordinances, would 
very easily slide into the practice of immersion, especially if 
there existed in their minds any predisposing causes. And 
such causes did exist in the strong tendencies towards supersti- 
tion which characterized the primitive Christians. While the 
church was yet in its infancy, and after it had lost the guid- 
ance of inspired teachers, it was liable to fall into many errors. 
Its members were but babes in Cliristian knowledge. If 
the churches, which have been gathered from the most refined 
of the modern pagan nations, should be deprived of the guid- 
ing and moulding influence of the missionary, how long would 
they continue to hold the truth in its purity ? There is, with 
many, a habit of regarding the primitive Christians, in the age 



MR. Hague's review. 1S5 

immediately succeeding the apostolic, as perfect models of 
excellence, and infallible expounders of the gospel. But we 
might with almost equal reason expect to find Christianity in 
her loveliest form among the converted savages of the Sand- 
wich Islands. The church in that age was made up of per- 
sons gathered out from under the pompous superstitions of 
heathenism, and exposed to a thousand influences still bearing 
them towards superstition. Even in the very days of the 
apostles, Paul had more than he could do to resist this ten- 
dency to superstition which thus early developed itself in the 
converts. Now it was chiefly this disposition, ivhich originated 
and fostered the practice of immersion. Minds so inclined 
would not be likely to be satisfied with the plain simplicity of 
the Christian rites as our Lord left them, but would naturally 
seek to make them more impressive. And it is a fact incon- 
trovertibly established, THAT ON NO SUBJECT DID 
SUPERSTITION SO LUXURIATE, AS UPON BAP- 
TISM. With immersion came in accompanying supersti- 
tions, as immersing three times, the use of consecrated water, 
anointing with oil, signing loith the sign of the cross, exor- 
cism, eating milk and honey, putting on of white garments, 
anointing the eyes and ears, and the stripping of men and wo- 
men perfectly naked, to denote their moral nakedness before the 
putting on of Christ. Now these were parts of the immer- 
sion of the early church. The same men who practised im- 
mersion, practised these fooleries. They all come down to 
us as one parcel. They can all boast a date equally ancient 
And those authors that claim for immersion an apostolic ori- 
gin, claim the same for its accompaniments. Take as a speci- 
men Romanus' book on " Ancient Rites," published at 
Frankfort, A. D. 168 L He contends that the use of the 
consecrated water was handed down from the apostles, as was 
also the custom of touching the nose and ears, and that of 
exorcism, «&c. He farther very gravely informs us that fe- 
males stripped themselves for baptism, and came out of the 

12* 



136 STRICTURES ON 

water in a state of nudity ; and that they were not permitted 
to consult the timidity and modesty of their sex. The reason 
on which this practice was grounded was tliis — " that Christ 
suffered naked, and that females as well as others must imi- 
tate Christ ;" just as it is now pretended that we must be im- 
mersed because (as it is falsely alleged) Christ was immersed. 
Romanus quotes Cyril as exclaiming — "O admirable specta- 
cle ! Ye were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed. 
So you imitate Adam, who was naked in Paradise, and was 
not ashamed. Yea, you imitate hira who was naked on the 
cross, even Christ." Now is it to be believed that our Lord 
ever instituted this mode of baptism? Could his apostles 
have sanctioned such superstitious usages 1 And yet we see 
them flourishing in the early church, as accompaniments of 
immersion, and coevals with it. 

The fact that immersion came into the church in such com- 
pany, is conclusive proof that it was the offspring of those 
superstitious propensities, to which even such men as Tertul- 
lian and Cyprian were in bondage. 

The Greek and Latin fathers are confessedly not safe guides 
as scriptural annotators ; and their practice is not to be received 
as the criterion of truth. Nevertheless, it is freely admitted 
that they must have understood the usual import of /Ss-nrT/^'a), a 
term familiar to them as our household words. But why did 
they not base the propriety of immersion on the meaning of 
this word? This is the whole of Mr. Hague's argument. 
But this they never essayed to do. The fathers well knew 
that the word could not be restricted in its signification to one 
mode of using water. They knew that it was frequently em- 
ployed to denote an effect, such as cleansing or purifying, 
without reference to mode. With their perfect know- 
ledge of the force of the word, they could not take the ground 
assumed by Mr. Hague. If they preferred immersion, it was 
for reasons which led them to practise trine immersion, the 
anointing with oil, &c. The great idea, however, which they 



MR. Hague's review. 137 

attached to the word, was purification. In all their wri- 
tings, THEY INVARIABLY USE IT AS SYNONYMOUS WITH xatSat- 

gi^oo, TO PURIFY, This g-eneric sense defines no one particu- 
lar mode of using the water. As religious purifying might 
be done by immersion, with their superstitious tendencies they 
would naturally show a partiality for that mode ; and as it 
could also be done by affusion or sprinkling, they could con- 
sistently allow the validity of other modes. Believing that 
^ATTTi^ce, as a religious term, was employed in the generic 
sense of to purify, the fathers very properly inferred that 
that which was essential to the Christian rite was the use of 
clean ivater, and not the mode of its use. 

If the reader wishes to see this point ably discussed, we 
refer him to the articles in the Biblical Repository, on the 
import of Baptize, from the pen of Dr. Edward Beecher. 
Dr. Beecher proves most triumphantly, not only that the 
Greek and Latin fathers understood baptize in the generic 
sense of to purify, but that this is its meaning as a religious 
term. These articles have been before the public for nearly 
two years. The advocates of exclusive immersion have not 
been ignorant of their publication. Mr. Hague betrays his 
knowledge of their existence by his wayside thrust at Pres, 
Beecher. Mr. Cushman alludes to t\ieT£i very prettilyarAev 
the image of a new star rising in the West. But why has 
no one this side of the Atlantic attempted a reply to them ? 
They are unansv/erable. 

And here we cannot forbear to ask — Is it reasonable to sup- 
pose, that our Lord intended that the r}iode of using the water 
should be considered the essential part of the baptismal rite ? 
The true spiritual baptism is purification. The external rite 
is designed only as the shadow of this reality. Is not the use 
of clean water all that, is needed to symbolize this effect 1 But 
if Christ intended to lay the stress on the mode of using the 
water, why did he not select a word of the most specific sig" 



iS8 STRICTURES ON 

nificalion ? If a servant had received a command to go to 
New York, and some of his friends should insist that he ought 
to voalk^ and that walking was essential to obedience, it would 
be very natural for him to ask, " Why did not my master bid 
me walk, if he designed to confine me to this particular mode 
of going V Or, if he had received an injunction to wash 
himself, and some one should tell him that he must hathe him- 
self, and that this mode of washing is essential to obedience, 
he might very properly inquire, " Why then did not my mas- 
ter use a word of more definite signification 1 If he intended 
to make some particular mode of washing essential, why did 
he not specify that mode 1 ' ' From the fact that his master had 
employed a word denoting simply an effect without reference 
to mode, that servant might justly conclude that he designed 
to lay no stress upon any one particular mode of washing. The 
application of these remarks to the subject under discussion is 
easy. Our Lord ?night have used words of more definite 
signification. The word dupto denotes specifically to dip or 
dive under. If he intended to make immersion essential to a 
right performance of the Christian rite, why did he not employ 
this word"? The Greek word rantizo denotes specifically 
sprinkling — the word ekcheo denotes specifically pouring. 
Now if Christ intended to give essential importance to any 
one particular mode of using water, why did he not make 
choice of one of those words, which so clearly define modes? 
The fact that he employed a word which is capable of denot- 
ing effects without reference to mode, as washing, cleansing, 
purifying, &c., is conclusive proof that he never designed, 
that any one particular mode of using water should be consid- 
ered essential to the validity of the rite. 

But, furthermore, what supposable analogy could have led 
our Lord to fix upon immersion ? Of the three modes of using 
the symbolic water, it is certainly the least appropriate. In- 
deed, to employ it in representing the effects of the Holy 
Spirit's operations upon the human soul, seems to be a mon- 



MR. Hague's review. 130 

strous perversion of language. Those effects are purity, joy, 
peace, &c. Now it is very common to speak of being im- 
mersed in care and trouble, of being immersed in debt, of 
being immersed in sloth, &c. The term is frequently used to 
denote something disagreeable and oppressive. But who ever 
thinks of describing that which is pleasant and joyous by such 
a term \ Immersed in purity — immersed in joy — immersed in 
peace — immersed in humility — it is barbarous phraseology ! 
If our Lord had designed to make some one particular mode 
of using the emblematic water essential, analogy would have 
led him to fix upon either of the other modes before immersion , 
See pp. 19, 20, 2L 

Concluding Remarks. 

The reader has now both sides of the controversy before 
iiim, and will judge for himself where the truth lies. If Mr. 
Hague has succeeded in sweeping away the positions assumed 
in our former treatise ; if he has demonstrated that the term 
baptize always specifies one particular mode of using a liquid^ 
and that that mode is immersion ; if he has shown that our 
blessed Lord, and all others whom John baptized, were im- 
mersed ; if he has proved that the apostles invariably immersed 
their converts ; — in a word, if he has made it clear that this 
mode of administering the rite is essential to its validity, and 
that it was so considered by the apostles and the early fathers 
of the church — if he has satisfactorily done all this, then let 
Mr. Hague be followed as the true guide. But, on the other 
hand, if our positions stand firm, notwithstanding his effort to 
move them from their basis ; if no satisfactory proof has yet 
been brought forward, showing that the apostles and fathers 
deemed the particular mode of using the purifying water, for 
which Mr. Hague contends, essential to baptism ; if the con- 
troverted term, like our words go^ travel^ dye, wash, purify, 
&c., denotes an effect without reference to mode, and this is 
proved by examples from both inspired and uninspired writers — 



140 STRICTURES ON 

then Mr. Hague is sadly in the wrong. He wears a yoke of 
bondage which Christ Jesus has not imposed upon his follow- 
ers. And because he would debar us from the Lord's table 
for not bowing our necks to this yoke, he is guilty of infring- 
ing our Christian liberty, and of exercising an usurped author- 
ity in the church. 

In coming to a final decision, let the reader not forget, that 
the advocates of exclusive immersion assume more responsi- 
bility than we do, and have more to prove. Their prhiciples 
of close commimion lay them under obligations to show, BE- 
YOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that the mode of bap- 
tism adopted by them is essential to the validity of the rite, or, 
as Mr. Hague gives us to understand, is the rite itself. If the 
reader fails, therefore, to discover that degree of certainty on 
either side which he could desire ; if after all it appears to be 
a matter of mere conjecture where the truth lies ; if the evi- 
dence on both sides seems to be almost equally balanced, and 
he can arrive at no conclusion which is perfectly satisfactory — 
then, in fact, the question is settled in our favor. For what 
intelligent and candid mind could ever feel justified in basing 
close communion upon an external ceremony of doubtful obli- 
gation? Will the reader presume to enforce on others a 
religious ceremony, the obligatory nature of which is not fully 
made out in his own mind? Shall not Christian liberality 
have the advantage of his doubts 1 Will he disown and reject 
from the communion and fellowship of the saints a large pro- 
portion of the most devoted Christians in the world, before he 
is quite sure that obedience to his Divine Master renders it 
necessary? Nothing is more certain than that our blessed 
Lord must be better pleased with that disposition in a disci- 
ple, which leads him to err on the side of Christian kindness 
than with the spirit of exclusiveness and intolerance. Before 
the reader comes to a final decision, then, let him put the 
argument in favor of immersion to the test of the inquiry — Is 



MR. Hague's review. 141 

this sure arid satisfactory ground on ivhich to base close com- 
munion 1 

We offer not these remarks because we feel that obscurity- 
hangs about the question in dispute. To us, the path of duty 
is clear. Mr. Hague very charitably insinuates that our con- 
fidence arises from the limitation of our views. As to that 
matter, the reader v/ill judge between him and us. We will 
only say, that the farther we carry our examination, the more 
settled is our conviction that exclusive immersion is directly 
opposed to the will of Christ. 

Towards the advocates of exclusive immersion we cherish 
no unkind feelings. Among them are many with whom we 
are familiarly acquainted, and whose friendship we highly 
value. But with their exclusive principle we have no sym- 
pathy. It is a pity that brethren, who embrace a common 
faith with us, who are enlisted under the same banners, and 
who will finally sit with us as guests at the Marriage Supper 
of the Lamb, should here on earth feel under the necessity 
of spreading a separate table. In this respect they maintain 
an unenviable singularity. How long shall it be so % How 
long shall their churches be the only place on earth, or in 
heaven, where the true disciple receives no welcome to the 
full communion of the saints? Surely the sooner this exclu- 
sive principle is extirpated the better. Why will not our 
brethren catch the spirit of one of their brightest luminaries, 
the illustrious Robert HalU Let his sentiments prevail, and 
we should hail the dawn of a brighter day. Such a reforma- 
tion, such a union of Christian brethren, as the adoption of his 
principles would effect, (to use his own language,) "would 
be a nearer approach to the ultimate triumph of the church, 
than the annals of time have yet recorded. In the accom- 
plishment of our Savior's prayer, we should behold a demon- 
stration of the divinity of his mission which the most impious 
could not resist ; we should behold in the church a peaceful 
haven, inviting us to retire from the tossings and perils of this 



142 STRICTURES ON MR. HAGUE S REVIEW. 

unquiet ocean to a sacred enclosure, a sequestered spot, which 
the storms and tempests of the world were not permitted to 
invade. 

' lutus aquas dulces, vivoque sedilia saxo : 
Nympharum domus. Hie fessas non vincula naves 
Ulla tenent : unco non adligat anchora morsu.' 

" The genius of the gospel, let it once for all be remem- 
bered, is not ceremonial, but spiritual ; consisting not in meats 
or drinks, or outward observances, but in the cultivation of 
such interior graces as compose the essence of virtue, perfect 
the character, and purify the heart. These form the soul of 
religion ; all the rest are but her terrestrial attire, which she 
will lay aside when she passes the threshold of eternity. 
When, therefore, the obligations of humility and love come 
into competition with a punctual observance of external rites, 
the genius of religion will easily determine to which we should 
incline." 



143 



APPENDIX. 

NOTE A. 

After quoting a passage from Tyndal, (page 77,) Mr. Hague says 
— " Probably Mr. Towne was not aware of the existence of such a 
passage from the pen of Tyndal, or he would not have spoken as he 
has done." Wonderful ! If this passage was quoted merely to show 
that Mr. Hague in this particular had read somewhere a quotation 
from Tyndal, which Mr. Towne never saw, and Mr. Hague never 
saw in its place in its oxen book, it is to the point. But if it was 
quoted as a refutation of any statement of ours respecting Tyndal, it 
falls far short of the mark. Does it show that Tyndal was not the 
translator of the New Testament 7 No. Does it show that he trans- 
lated it according to the principle of Immersers 7 No. Does it show 
that he practised immersion 7 No._ That he in any way sustained 
" the assumption," " that the word signifies only immersion 7 " No. 

If it be any mystery that Tyndal so expressed himself as to allow, 
as we do, that plunging might be baptism, Mr. Hague himself has 
solved that mystery, by a similar quotation fromCowper, in a note on 
the same page, in which it appears that Cowper, as well as Tyndal, 
'thought such figures of speech not incongruous with the anti-mers- 
ing theory. And if still more light is wanting. Dr. Manton, on Ro- 
mans vi., uses essentially the same illustration which Mr. H, has 
quoted from Tyndal ; and in the same page decidedly contends against 
the Immerser's theory. Mr. Hague must indeed be grateful for small 
favors, if he can make so much of a casual figurative expression, from 
one so decidedly against him. 

NOTE B. 

Mr. Hague says — " Very few baptisms [immersions] in this coun- 
try trace their pedigree to Roger Williams." But, according to his 
own account of the matter, it was more than twenty years after the 
organizing of Roger Williams' church before the first church of 
English Immersers was established in New England. And if that 
church, in that time, occupying the focus of the immersing interest, did 
not beget and send forth immersing children, so as to cover a larger 
portion of the immersing field than a church established twenty years 
after, it had a rare experience. But what if it were so 7 did not the 
branches of Mr. Williams' church baptize? and were Immersers 
ever in the habit of discrediting those baptisms, as Mr. Hague now vir- 
tually does 7 Was any distinction from that day to this ever observed 
between immersions having a domestic, and those having a foreign 
origin 7 Would any advocate for immersion now deem it a defect in 
his baptism, should he find that it came in direct line from the unapos- 
tolic baptism of Williams 7 If not, of what value are Mr. Hague's 
suggestions on that point 7 
13 



144 APPENDIX. 



NOTE C. 



THE NEW BIBLE. 



It has been announced in the papers that the new translation 
of the Bible has been published ; though we have not yet seen 
it. We understand, that, while it substitutes immerse and im- 
mersion for baptize and baptism, in most cases, it excepts the case 
of John the Baptist; and forbears to carry out its principle, so as to 
say, as it should, John the Immerser. What is the matter ? Has 
a distinction after all been found between immersing and baptizing 1 
Or are our friends afraid to call things by their right names? Or are 
they afraid that others will, if they do ; and so that they shall lose 
the advantage which they now have in a monopoly of the' name Bap- 
tist? Whatever evils may follow this attempt to give currency to a 
sectarian Bible — however much it is to be deplored that sectarianism 
has now at last invaded the Bible itself, this good will result from it — 
the public will have a practical illustration of the absurdity of the 
principle, which makes immersion to be everywhere identical with 
baptism. 

NOTE D. 

THE GREEK CHURCH. 

The view which we have given of the origin of immersion in the 
primitive church, accounts satisfactorily for the existing practice of 
the Greek church, and is more than an answer to Mr. Hague's quo- 
tations on that subject. But we cannot forbear to cite a few sentences 
from Dr. Beecher's work, named above. " The opinion of the Greek 
church is often alleged as decisive in favor of the meaning immerse. 
Being by name the Greek church, it is inferred, of course, that they 
must be good judges of the import of a Greek word. In reply to this, 
I would ask — Is modern Italian ancient Latin? If not, neither is 
modern Greek ancient Greek. That modern Greek resembles its 
ancient stock more than Italian does the Latin, I do not deny. 
But the resemblance is not such, that the opinion of a modern Greek 
scholar, on a point like this, is worth any more than that of a modern 
German, Italian, or English scholar. No man can form an opinion 
on this subject, except by a study of the facts found in the ancient 
writers, who exhibit the usage in question; and his opinion is worth 
most, who most carefully investigates, compares, classifies and judges 
in view of the whole case. And if this be so, the opinions of the 
modern Greek church, unsustained by argument, ought to have no 
peculiar weight. Their proficiency in philological studies certainly 
does not exceed that of other European scholars, to say nothing 
of those of America." 



AN 

EXAMINATION 

OP THE 

REV. MESSRS. COOKE AND TOWNE'S 

HEJOmDER TO THE REYIEW 



OP THEIR 



HINTS TO AN INQUIRER 



SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 



By WILLIAM HAGUE, 

Pastor of Federal St. Baptist Church. 



BOSTON: 

GOULD, KENDALL AND LINCOLN, 

59 WASHINGTON STREET. 

1842. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, 
By GOULD, KENDALL & LINCOLN, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 



William S. Damrell, Printer, No. 11 Cornhill. 



ADVERTISEMENT, 



Absence from home on several summer excursions, followed 
by severe sickness, has prevented me from replying to the 
Rejoinder of Rev. Messrs. Cooke and Towne, with that degree of 
promptness with which a discussion of this sort should ever be pur- 
sued, unless it be brought to some clear and definite issue. As the 
delay has been caused by the dispensation of a kind and unerring 
Providence, I have cheerfully acquiesced, knowing that "my 
times are in his hand," that the hairs of our heads are all num- 
bered, and that from the minutest events of life. He often brings 
forth great and lasting good. 

Although I could employ my pen on many subjects, more 
agreeably than on this controverted one, respecting which, so 
many esteemed friends differ, yet, inasmuch as the initiating rite 
of the Christian religion is a part of that heritage of truth which 
Christ has left us, and which we are commanded to preserve in 
its purity, I could not with a clear conscience, be silent, when 
others are so active in inculcating views of baptism, which seem 
to me entirely to set aside the original ordinance enjoined by 
Christ in the great commission, and which he designed to be 
kept in its primitive simplicity, " unto the end of the world." I 
have written only in defence. So have most others, who have 
published any thing on the same side of the question. It was 
long since observed by the excellent Dr. Ryland, that " often as 
we have been charged with intemperate zeal on this subject, it 
is remarkable that most of our principal writers have only replied 
to attacks first made on our denomination ; for example. Dr. Gale 



to Dr. Wall ; Mr. Stennett to Mr. Russen ; Dr. Gill to Maurice, 
Bostwick, Towgood, Mayo, &c. ; Dr. Stennett to Dr. Addington." 
So in this city, very little, if any thing, has been published by us, 
except in reply to others. Dr. Baldwin wrote more largely than 
any of his brethren, but it was in answer to the arguments of Dr. 
Worcester, of Salem. 

If it should seem to any reader, that, in the present production 
I have expressed too strong a confidence in the correctness of our 
opinions, let me ask such an one to consider the fact, that on no 
question in theology, is there a more extensive agreement of 
opinion throughout the greater part of Christendom, than on this, 
what ivas the mode of apostolic baptism ? The Greek and Latin 
churches are the largest in the world. The Greeks charge the 
Latins with having altered the primitive immersion into sprink- 
ling. The Latins own the fact, and assert the right of the Church 
to alter. It is impossible that any historical question could be 
settled on clearer evidences, so that it was not without reason, 
that a celebrated mathematician. Dr. Gregory, author of the 
" Letters on the Evidences of Christianity," took occasion once to 
say, that it is " the only question in theology, where the evidence is 
all on one side." The great peculiarity of the Baptists is in strictly 
adhering to what is so widely acknowledged to have been apos- 
tolic, saying, as they do, that if " the Bible is the only rule of 
faith," we must, as consistent Protestants, conform our practice 
to the rule, and show our faith, by our works, our love, by our 
obedience. 



CONTENTS. 

Page, 

Introduction. Spirit of the Rejoinder, 5 

Examination of alleged Errors. 

1. Luke's quotation from Isaiah, in Acts 8: 32, 7 

2. Turretin's testimony to ths proper sense of baptize, •• 8-12 

His proof of it b}'' the Sybilline verse, * 13 

His agreement on that point with Beza, Casaubon and WitsiuSj ... 16 

The Sybilline verse, a test of the force of the word,.. 21 

3. Luther's testimony to the proper sense of the word,' 23 

Lutlieran theologians cited, 24 

4. Scapula's tesiimoay,— drawn from Stephanus, 26-29 

5. The concessions of other Pedobaptist writers, 29 

6. On immersions among the Jews, 31 

7. On tlie testimony of the lexicons,— Schleusner, Wahl and Bret- 

SCHNEIDER, 32 

8. 9. 10. On the testiaiony oiother le.^icographers, 35 

The principal mistake of the authors of the Rejoinder, 44 

Princtples op Philology. 45 

1 . These of essential importance, — misstatement of them, 47 

2. What the fundamental principles really are, _. 48-50 

3. Difference between the meaning of a word and its application, 50 

4. Farther elucidation of the philological error of the Rejoinder, 52-57 

5. Piofessor Stuart's testimony, 58 

6. Tholuck's remark on an important distinction, 59 

7. Refutation of the Rejoinderon the citation from Josephus, 60 

8. Refatatit'n of the Rejoinder on other citations,. 61-63 

9. The false philology af the Rejoinder proved by English words of its 

own selection, viz., Spring and Ear, ~. 63-64 

Application op our Argument to the Lord's Supper, 66 

The philology of the Rejoinder the same as that of Romish writers on 

the mass, 63 

Infant sprinkling the '' weak point" of Protestantism, 69 

Examination of Statements in the Introduction to the Rejoinder, 70 

On Arguments omitted in the Review of the Hints, 74 

Pieason for the omission, 74 

Statement of the favorite argument drawn from the mode of the Spirit's 

influence, 76 

Seven proofs that this argument assumes what is not true, 77-89 

Four proofs that the principle of the argument is fallacious, 90-94 

Burial vf ith Christ in Baptism, 95 

Five objections to the common interpretation set aside, 96-100 

The substitute for the common interpretation refuted, 101 

Proofa that the common interpretation is the right one, 103-108 

Learned Critics and Theologians, 109 

Ths claim of the Baptists to the testimony of those cited in the Review, 

vindicated, 109-1 13 

Literature op the World, - 114 

The Citations of the Classics .• 115 

Examination of President Beecher's Letter to Mr. Towne, 113 

Compliance v/ith Messrs. Cooke and Towne's Req,uest, 129 

Similarity of the Arguments for Universalism and Sprinkling,... 130 

Baptism of Beds, 131 

John's Baptism,. 133 

Baptism of Christ, — 1-34 

Baptism of the Three Thousand, 135 

Baptism of the Ethiopian, — Baptism and the Lord's Supper, 137 

How Sprinkling cabie to be called Baptism, 138 

The Argument from Figures,.. .- 133 

Brief Summary, 139 

Conclusion, --. 142 



EXAMINATION. 



It gave me pleasure to learn from a public paper, 
that the gentlemen whose " Hints to an Inquirer on the 
subject of Baptism " I had had occasion to review, were 
intending to furnish a reply. Not that I wished to 
protract the controversy, but such was the position in 
which they were left in regard to many of their state- 
ments, that justice to themselves, as Christian teachers, 
seemed to require that they should bring forward some 
new explanations, or, in case they saw that they had 
gone too far, or said aught inadvertently, that they 
should present a candid retraction. Indeed, as to some 
points, it seemed to me quite probable that they would 
do the latter, especially, considering that their articles 
were first prepared for the columns of a newspaper, and 
that in that kind of writing one is easily tempted to use 
expressions which calm reflection will not justify. They 
have chosen, however, to unite again, in an attempt to 
avert the force of the testimonies which I produced 
against them, and to countenance each other in re- 
affirming all that they had said. The reader is aware 
that in preparing my first review, I had the impression 
that the Rev. Mr. Towne, one of our city pastors, was 
the sole author of the work then before me. It was 
with surprise I learned that there w^as connected with 
him in the effort, a senior brother belonging to the 
editorial corps. This fact explained much that seemed 
strange in the matter and spFrit of the production. The 
work now under consideration bears with it also the air 
1* 



of the editor's office, rather than of the minister's study. 
The presiding genius of the one place is certainly 
different from that of the other. Their proper employ- 
ments are different, and they lead men to cultivate 
different moods of mind, and different styles of expres- 
sion. In the office, one is more affected by the hurry 
and din of business, and more easily forms a habit of 
hasty examination and of adventurous assertion, tinged 
with a glow of party feeling ; in the study, there is far 
more that is favorable to calm thought, to thorough 
research, and the spirit of devotion. A production from 
the office, we are not much surprised to see imbued with 
the elements of strife, reeking wet with " the waters of 
Meribah ; " but that which comes from the study, we 
expect to be pervaded with the genial spirit of candor, 
charity, and truth, all baptized in " Siloa's brook, which 
flows fast by the oracle of God." Whatever, then, in 
the work before us, seems not in keeping with the air 
and character of the pastor's study, we may trace to its 
home in a place less near to heaven. 

This last remark I make the more readily, because in 
an editorial article of the Puritan, the sentiment was 
some time since openly avowed, that in the baptismal 
controversy a sort of tact in meeting unreasonable 
prejudice was much more needed than talent ; and that 
instead of solid argument, there was wanted a "skill in 
shooting airy fancies on the wing." Much more ap- 
peared, of the same import, showing that it was the writer's 
aim to study how to say those things which would make 
an impression on the popular ear, without much regard 
to the established principles of reasoning. After reading 
the declaration of a sentiment like this, justifying as it 
does a certain kind of hardihood and recklessness of 
expression, merely for the sake of effect, I should have 
been quite indisposed to notice any publication on 
baptism bearing the name of Mr. Cooke alone, unless 
indeed it were accompanied with a frank and ample 



retractation. As I have replied, however to his article, 
while supposing Mr. Towne to be the only writer, I feel 
bound now to proceed with an examination of this new 
work of their joint authorship. 

In glancing at the pamphlet now under review, I 
cannot but sympathize with the feelings of the honest 
inquirer, who, having read this Rejoinder, should ask in 
a tone of despondency, "■ Who can tell what is truth ? 
If men who ougiit to be competent witnesses of facts 
differ in their testimony, on what are we to depend ? " 
Nevertheless, let such an one take courage. Let him 
resolve to be true to himself, to use all the means of 
knowledge which God has given him, to act according 
to the light he receives, and with sincere prayer for the 
divine blessing, he will not be left to grope in doubt. 
In the case before us, if he will give me his attention 
through the following pages, I trust that he will more 
clearly see the sources of those discrepancies of opinion 
and assertion which have tended most to perplex him. 

The more easily to meet the wants of every reader, I 
will announce the following method, which I shall 
pursue in discussing the merits of the Rejoinder: 

I. I shall examine our authors' list of my " erroneous 
statements of facts and authorities." 

II. Consider the section, which involves the turning 
point of the controversy, entitled, " Principles of Philol- 
ogy." (p. 106.) 

III. Review the other sections of the pamphlet, in 
the order of their occurrence. 

First of all, then, the list of errors demands our 
attention. This commences on the 88th page. The 
first error is thus stated : 

"Error 1. We adduced the passage, ^ He shall 
sprinkle many nations,' as proof that the mind of the 
Ethiopian eunuch had been directed, previous to his 
baptism, to sprinkling ; and hence we inferred a proba- 



8 

bility that he was sprinkled. To this Mr. Hague 
replies : * Strange assertion ! Here I ask, did not Mr. 
Towne know that the version of the Seventy (in which 
the word translated sprinkle is rendered astonish) is the 
very one from which Luke quotes the passage in ques- 
tion 7 The evangehst himself takes the text of the 
Seventy, word for word.' Such is Mr. Hague's asser- 
tion ; and yet the evangelist does not quote word for 
word from the Seventy, but departs from that version in 
four instances in less than four lines, as will be seen by 
the note below." 

The reader will certainly unite with me in a feeling 
of astonishment at this remark, when I refer him to 
another source of information on the point. The first 
American edition of Dr. Bloomfield's Greek Testament 
was published in Boston in the year 1837, with a preface 
by Prof. Stuart. It is remarkable for the purity of the 
text, and the attention given to that subject. On 
Luke's quotation from Isaiah (Acts 8 : 32), Dr. Bloom- 
field says in his note, " These words are taken from 
Isaiah 53 : 7, 8, and follow the Septuagint version 
EXACTLY ; the verbal discrepancies which occur not 
heing found in the Alexandrian and other good 
manuscripts of the Septuagint. '' Now, what must I 
think of the accuracy of my opponents as critics and 
reasoners, when they call that " Mr. Hague's assertion," 
which is not only set forth in standard works, but even 
In those which are republished in our own city from 
European editions, and, of course, must be to them easy 
of access ? I would not for a moment admit the thought, 
that they would say any thing contrary to their knowl- 
edge of the fact ; but as the means of information were 
at hand, I marvel that they did not use them. 

The second charge of erroneous statement is thus 
made : 

"Error 2. On page 76, he says that Turretin 
agrees with him in opinion as to immersion. Now, 



what is it to agree with Mr. Hague on this subject ? It 
is to maintain that the word has one signification, and 
one only. But scarcely a writer of equal note, since 
the days of the apostles, expresses himself more decided- 
ly against this view than Turretin. We will quote the 
substance of his remarks, and give the reader his own 
words in a note below." 

I really ought to express my thanks to our authors 
for giving us Turretin's " own words in a note below," 
for I do not know of a case in all the annals of contro- 
versy, where men have so readily furnished the means 
of their own refutation. How completely this has been 
done in the present instance, we shall see in a moment, 
when we come to examine the passage. Before doing 
so, however, I would premise two remarks. 

(1.) I wish to state with more perfect precision than 
my reviewers have done, what it is to agree with me on 
the subject of baptism. They have expressed it rather 
loosely. It is not to maintain that ^' the word has one 
meaning, and one only," for almost every word in every 
language has a great variety of figurative or tropical 
meanings, and men daily give to words new figurative 
applications. But it is to maintain that this word has 
only one proper or literal meaning. '' The first impor- 
tant division or distinction of words, in respect to their 
meaning " (says Ernesti*), " is into proper and tropical, 
i. e., literal and figurative, or (better still), primary and 
secondary." '^ A proper word is a definite name given 
to a certain thing, and as such may be explained by 
adverting to the proper names of persons. A tropical 
word is one used out of its proper, i. e., original sense, 
as, rosy face, snowy skin, where rosy and snowy cannot 
be literally or properly predicated of the skin. The 
names trope and tropical come from the Greek word 
tropos (rgonog^, inversion, change." Here an important 
principle is stated. No man can be a competent inter- 

* Principles of Interpretation, Prof. Stuart'a translation, p. 21. 



10 

preter, who does not distinguish accurately between 
literal and figurative language. The Papists defend 
Transubstantiation, — the monstrous doctrine, that in the 
eucharist, the bread and wine are changed into the real 
body and blood of Christ, — chiefly by confounding the 
distinction between tropical and proper words in the 
passage, " This is my body—this is my blood." The 
most enormous errors in religion have arisen from 
neglecting this distinction ; and in theological discus- 
sions, the first important question often is, at the outset, 
whether the language in a disputed text be literal or 
Bgurative. Such an inquiry is indispensable ; for by 
means of a figure or trope, a word is sometimes made to 
denote just the reverse of what it properly signifies. 
For instance, there is one kind of hyperbole called 
auxesis, which enlarges the meaning, and another called 
meiosis, which diminishes it. According to the first, 
Cowley, the poet, calls a copious sprinkling or wetting, 
drowning ; as when he says of Goliath, that he lay 
" drowned in his own blood." An example of the 
second, is the case of a man, who, having slipped and 
fallen into a river, made light of his submersion, by 
saying to his friends, that he " did not mind a little 
wetting.'^ In such tropes, not only poetry but common 
conversation abounds; and to confound them with literal 
language, would be attributing to a writer or speaker a 
sense very different, if not the very opposite of what he 
intends. 

Now, it is universally admitted, that the word baptize, 
in the commission of our Lord, and in the plain narra- 
tives of the Acts of the Apostles, is not used in a 
figurative sense. As Ernesti observes (p. 74), "Laws, 
history, didactic ivories, seldom admit tropes. Legisla- 
tors in their statutes, historians in their narrations of 
facts, where they aim simply at the declaration of them, 
seldom admit tropes." In accordance with this prin- 
ciple, my position relative to the meaning of the word 



11 

was thus stated in my Review (p. 9) : " The main 
question is, whether the word used by Christ to enjoin 
baptism, in the last exercise of his legislation on earth, 
in giving that commission which is binding ' to the end 
of the world,' denotes a specific act or not. If it does 
not, then there is no law which certainly holds us to 
immersion. If it does, then all objections drawn from 
supposed difficulties, or from the greater convenience 
of sprinkling, are no more to be regarded as arguments, 
than those questions which skeptics sometimes ask, in 
order to throw discredit on the very letter and spirit of 
revelation." 

(2.) As our authors have selected Turretin from a 
number of other celebrated Pasdobaptist writers whom I 
mentioned, and have given him so prominent a place, 
it is evident that they regarded this quotation from him 
as presenting a strong case on their side. If, however, 
it shall appear that this entirely fails to answer their 
purpose, it will be but reasonable for the reader to infer 
that the concessions which I claimed from the other 
writers, are equally valid in sustaining my position. 

Now why did I refer to Turretin ? I spoke of him 
as one, who practised sprinkling as baptism. I placed 
his name in a list of celebrated Peedobaptist scholars. 
What then was my design, when, by using his name, I 
availed myself of his authority? It was to show, that 
although as a member of a church which used sprinkling, 
he adhered to the practice, it was not on the ground of 
the literal and proper meaning of the word baptize. 
This great po'mt he concedes to us. When I spoke of 
Turretin, Luther and others as acquiescing in the practice 
of sprinkling, I implied, of course, that they had some 
reason for so doing ; but my assertion was, that they 
did not assign the proper meaning of the word as that 
reason. The full advantage of this argument, they 
yield to the Baptists. 

Let us now turn to the quotation. 



12 

[1.] In order to give his idea of the proper meaning 
of the word baptize, Turretin says, "Baptism is a word 
of Greek origin, derived from bapto, tingerc et imbuere, 
and from baptizo, intingere et immergere.^^ Now here, 
seeing that he translates bapto into Latin, by the w^ord 
tingo, our autliors render this merely tinge, and make 
the following remark on the whole sentence : " Turretin 
does not allow that bapto, the radical word, means to 
immerse at all, and gives baptizo another signification 
before that of immerse. " (p. 93). That any English 
reader may be able to appreciate the peculiar worth of 
this criticism, let him take Ainsworth's English Diction- 
ary with Latin definitions, and turn to the word Dip. 
He will find it thus written ; Dip — tingo, intingo, im- 
mergo. The same words in the same order are found in 
other dictionaries. Tingo is given as the first Latin word 
to translate Dip. And yet my reviewers tell us that 
" Turretin does not allov/ that the radical W'ord bapto 
means to immerse at oil ! ^^ Comment is unnecessary. 

In regard to Tingo, the case is this. The Latin 
word for Dyer is Tinctor ; Tingo is a dyer's word, 
denoting the act of dyeing, and as that is generally 
done by dipping, the Latins got into the habit of using 
tingo to translate bapto, which means to dip. Thus 
Dr. Campbell (of the Presbyterian church) observes in 
his note on Matt. 3: 11, "the word baptize, both in 
sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to 
immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of 
the Latin Fathers, by tingere, the term used for dyeing 
cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed 
suitably to this meaning." 

Let it be noticed however, that wdien Turretin 
mentions baptizo, the only form of the word used in the 
New Testament, to designate the rite of baptism, he 
speaks of it as a stronger term than bapto. This is 
in accordance with a remark of the celebrated Porson 
of Cambridge, that both words expressed immersion, 



13 

but that baptizo is the stronger word of the two. Tur- 
retin renders it not only by immergo, but intingo, which 
means to dip in, and is regarded by the lexicographers 
as denoting a complete immersion. 

(2.) The first example which Turretin cites to illus- 
trate the w^ord, is a phrase from Plutarch, — " baptize 
yourself in the sea." As my reviewers translate this 
instance of the word by plunge, there is no dispute as 
to its meaning. This then is acknowledged to be a 
plain case. And as this is Turretin's first example, 
who can doubt about what he understood to be the 
proper meaning of baptize? 

(3.) He proceeds to illustrate this further, by quoting 
a celebrated line, which Plutarch mentions in his life of 
Theseus, the founder of the city of Athens. It is a 
brief expression of the Sybil touching the fortunes of that 
city. The oracle compares Athens to a blown bladder 
floating on the water, which, though it may be pressed 
under the surface, will not sink to the bottom, but by 
its own buoyancy, will rise again when left to itself. 

The line is, Aaxog ^amvu], dvvav 8s jov ov 6s/iug sgTh' 
of which I gave the version of Dr. Langhorne, the 
English translator of Plutarch, as follows : The bladder 
may be dipped, but never drowned. This, Messrs. 
Cooke and Towne call a "loose translation," and insist 
on rendering it, '' Thou mayest be baptized, O bladder, 
but it is not permitted to thee to go under the water ! " 
The word which Langhorne rendered dipped, is baptizo ; 
that rendered drowned, is dunai. This line is of great 
importance in this discussion ; (1) because it contains 
not the word bapto, which is never used in the Bible to 
denote the ordinance of baptism, but baptizo, which is 
always employed for this purpose ; (2) because this 
word is so strikingly contrasted with other terms ; (3.) 
because it has been appealed to by so many standard 
writers for the sake of illustration. There is no line 
in the Greek classics, so fitted to decide the question 
before us. 2 



14 

Having quoted this line, Turretin niakes the following 
remark on the word baptize : '' hence it means more 
than epipolazein, which is lightly to float, and less than 
dunein, which is to go right down, that is to go to the 
bottom unto destruction.''' Now this assertion of 
Turretin is directly contrary to the assertion of Messrs. 
Cooke and Towne, when they quoted that line in their 
Hints to an Inquirer. (See p. 8). There, they say, 
"floating upon the water is called baptism." But here, 
Turretin says it is not so. He says, baptism is more 
than that. On this point I agree with him. And here 
it is that my reviewers are found to be at variance with 
him whom they call " ihe learned and profound Turretin." 
But in addition to saying that baptize means more 
than floating on the surface, he declares that it means 
less than sinking down to the bottom. The reader will 
observe that his expression is, it means less than dunein. 
But does he say what dunein means ? Yes, he gives 
the sense of that Greek word in Latin, but his definition 
of it, Messrs. Cooke and Towne have covered up. He 
says, that duneiii means, " to go right down ; that is, 
to go to destruction at the bottom." His words are, — 
dvvsip, quod est pessum ire, id est, ad exitium fundum 
jpetere. This explanation, they translate, as if it meant, 
merely, to put under the surface; — '^to overwhelm or 
submerge." But did they really think, that it meant 
no more than this ? To say so, would imply that they 
had very little acquaintance with the language which 
they were professing to translate. I perceive, that in 
two places, they quote with respect, the dictionary of 
Facciolatus and Forcellinus ; but in Bailey's quarto 
edition of that work the very phrase, pessum ire, stands 
translated for them, — "to go to perdition." And who 
that pretends to read Latin at all, does not know that 
the phrase — ad exitium fundum petere — means, to go 
to the bottom unto destruction ? But in order to make 
Turretin appear to say, that baptism, in its proper sense, 
is something less than going under the water, they force 



15 

that very meaning, not only on the Greek word duneiny 
but on Turretin's careful explanation of it. Now, in 
covering up the sense of these latter expressions, which 
form an essential part of Turretin's criticism on the 
word haptizo, my reviewers have placed me under the 
necessity of saying, that, either they lack the requisite 
knowledge of Latin to translate this passage, or that 
they determined to avoid giving the full sense, or else, 
that they are chargeable with strange and gross inadver- 
tence. As the last is the mildest supposition, let us try 
to hold to that. Perhaps they entrusted the translation 
to some one, who has not dealt faithfully with the 
author or with them. At any rate, the rendering 
reveals an egregious fault somewhere. 

But as if wonders must come in clusters, the gentle- 
men refer to this point again, on page 112, and say: 
" We presume Mr. Hague will not stake his reputation 
as a scholar on the assertion that dunai (dwai), by its 
own force, means to drown." If I have any reputation 
to risk, I may well save it for another occasion ; for 
here, I beg the reader to observe, that the very thing 
which Turretin exhibits in the quotation, is the fact that 
dunai means to drown. He declares it to be the oppo- 
site of epipolazein, which means to swim on the surface, 
while dunai means to be destroyed at the bottom. Risk 
my reputation ! Indeed, I need not, since I may sum- 
mon others to speak. Hear Beza, the successor of 
Calvin. ^^ Baptizo differs from ^ZM/zai, which signifies 
to plunge in the deep and to drown ; as appears from 
that verse of an ancient oracle (he here cites the same 
line), in which these two terms are distinguished as 
expressing different ideas." Hear Casaubon, formerly 
Greek Professor at Geneva, in his Annotations on Matt. 
3:6. " This was the rite of baptizing, that persons 
were plunged into the water, which the very word 
baptizein suficiently declares ; which, as it does not 
signify dwsiv, to sink to the bottom and perish, so doubt- 



16 

less it is not epipolazein, to swim on the surface. For 
these three words, epijpoJazein, bajpiizein, and dunein, 
are of different significations. Whence we understand, 
that it was not without reason that some long ago insisted 
on the immersion of the whole body in the ceremony of 
baptism ; for they urge the word BuTtTi'ceiv, to baptize." 
Hear, again, Witsius, Professor of Theology atLeyden 
(in his Economy of the Covenants, book 4, chap. 16, 
4 13). " It cannot be denied, that the native significa- 
tion of the word haptein and hajjtizein, is, to plunge, to 
dip. So that it is, doubtless, more than epipolazeiUj 
which is, to swim lightly on the surface ; but less than 
dunai, which is, to go down to the bottom and be 
destroyed." Apart from these authorities, speaking 
directly to the point, let the reader see for himself the 
fact, that in Exodus 15 : 10, where it is said of the 
hosts of Pharaoh, that "they sanJc like lead in the 
mighty waters," the word translated '' sanJc,'^ in the Sep- 
tuagint, is this very one, of which my opponents presume 
that I will not venture to say that it signifies to drown. 
The ancients applied the word to the setting of the sun, 
from the idea that the sun sunk in the ocean. As the 
word means to sinlc down, when it is affirmed of a man, 
or of Pharaoh's army, represented as being in the water, 
it must leave the mind with the idea of drowning, unless 
something be suggested in the context or the nature of 
the case, to show that this natural consequence of sink- 
ing down did not occur. But in the line before us, 
there is an antithesis, which causes the sense of drown- 
ing, or perishing at the bottom, to be marked with more 
than ordinary distinctness. It is true, if 1 wished simply 
to lay stress on the idea of covering with water, as being 
involved in mere dipping, I might use the word sin'k. If 
a man should say to me, " to dip means only to wet," 
I might reply. No, in order to dip any thing, you must 
sink it under water. But if I should form an antithesis, 
and say of an urn or any vessel, " I intended to dip it, 



17 

but it sunk down," every body would understand me to 
mean, that the thing went to the bottom and remained 
there. It is thus with this Greek word. If a Greek 
writer means to say emphatically that baptism involves 
the idea of covering in water, he will express that idea 
strongly by the word duno or its compounds. But if 
he intends to mark the real and proper difference 
between baptizing and sinking down, he will do it just 
as the oracle has in this celebrated line, or as Turretin 
has done in his comments upon it. 

Any reader, who will look closely at the passage, 
may satisfy himself, that in illustrating the proper sense 
of haptizo, Turretin's declaration amounts to this ; that 
inasmuch as haptizo means more than floating upon the 
surface, and less than lying at the bottom, its distinctive 
import is, to immerse or dip, — that is, to put under the 
surface. The line which he quotes is an admirable one 
to exhibit the native force of the word, because there 
the Greeks themselves have set it forth, contrasted with 
other terms in such a way, as to exhibit the beauty of 
an exact definition. 

With this illustration of the native and proper mean- 
ing of baptizo, Turretin leaves that point, and proceeds 
to speak of its figurative meanings, or the variations of 
the word when it is acted on by figures of speech. 
His remark at this transition point is as follows: "But 
because any thing is usually merged and dipped, in 
order that it may be washed, and those ivho are immersed 
are usually cleansed, it comes to pass, that, as with the 
Hebrews, tahal (which the Seventy translate baptizo, in 
2 Kings 5: 14) is taken for rahatz, which signifies to 
wash, in the same passage,— so with the Greeks, the 
word baptize is made, by means of a metalepsis, to 
signify washing. (Mark 7: 4.) The Jews, when they 
come from the market, except they wash (baptize) they 
eat not." Now in regard to this quotation, it is not 
necessary for me to stop here to inquire whether Mark, 
2* 



18 

in the verse referred to, speaks of complete immersions 
among the Pharisees, or not. I beheve that he does, 
because he says they followed the superstitious tradi- 
tions of the elders ; and there is ample proof from the 
rabbies, that those traditions enjoined frequent immer- 
sions. But that is not now the question. What I wish 
to draw attention to here, is this ; that if those washings 
were not real immersions, Turretin asserts that they 
came to be called baptisms, only by means of a figure of 
speech, denominated metalepsis. This word, it will be 
observed, does not appear in the translation of Messrs. 
Cooke and Towne. They have covered up the sense, 
by the word " tropically y But Turretin is more spe- 
cific. He names the trope, by which he says baptize 
comes to be used for washing. He calls it a metalepsis. 
And what is this ? Of all tropes, it expresses most 
emphatically a change produced in the meaning of a 
word. The very name of the trope itself signifies "a 
change.'^ According to him, those washings mentioned 
in Mark, came to be called that, which, properly speak- 
ing, they were not, by means of this figure. In rhetoric, 
the definition of a metalepsis is, " a continuation of a 
trope in one word, through a succession of signijications.^^ 
A metalepsis combines several tropes in one. And if, 
in the view of Turretin, a partial washing was called a 
baptism, by means of a metalepsis, what two tropes 
could be united to produce this result? Why (1), there 
is a synecdoche, according to which a part is put for 
the whole ; as when we speak of " the dip of oars," of 
the painter's " dipping his pencil," or of " dipping a pen 
in ink," w'hen in reality we only mean the end or point. 
We speak thus of dipping the finger, when we only 
mean the end of it. The same thing is expressed in 
Luke 16: 24, without a figure, by the phrase, "that he 
may dip the tip of his finger in water." Here the same 
idea is expressed literally, which before was expressed 
by a synecdoche. But in Turretin's view, to form a 



19 

metalepsis, there must have been, not only this trope, by 
which a part is put for the whole, but he describes a 
metonymy, — that particular kind which the rhetoricians 
call a metonymy of the effect or end. In the use of this 
trope, the effect of a thing is designated by the same 
name as the thing itself. The effect is put for the cause. 
Thus, sweat is put for labor, which causes it : " in the 
sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread." Nevertheless^ 
sweat and labor are different words, meaning different 
things. When the sons of the prophets, while eating 
their pottage, cried out to Elisha, there is death in the 
pot, they meant something which would cause death. 
Nevertheless, death, and a poisonous herb, are different 
things. Here is a metonymy. 

In the case of Naaman, cited by Turretin (2 Kings 
5: 14), we read that the direction was (v. 10), ''Go 
wash thyself in Jordan seven times. And he went 
down and dipped himself in Jordan seven times." As 
washing or cleansing is the effect of dipping in clean 
water, the act of dipping may be called, by a figure, 
washing or cleansing. But they are different words, 
properly meaning different things. The effect of dipping 
in mire, would be to defile, the effect of dipping hi col- 
oring matter, to dye or stain. And by a metonymy, each 
of these may be put for dipping or immersion. So too, 
they may be put for sprinkling, because washing, 
cleansing, defiling, dyeing and staining, are often the 
effects of sprinkling. But who would reason hence, 
that the word sprinMe means to wash, cleanse, defile, 
dye or stain in any mode ? No man, in every day 
affairs, would do so ; yet my opponents reason thus, 
respecting the word translated, c^^p or immerse. Dr. 
Johnson defines sprinkling, to mean properly, "to scat- 
ter in drops," and then, " to wash, — to wet." These 
latter significations come into existence by means of the 
trope called metonymy ; bnt he who should hence infer 
that all these various terms are properly equivalent in 



20 

meaning, that washing or wetting in any way is sprink- 
ling;, would seem to be making sport of the laws of 
language, or, if serious, would seem on common subjects 
"to shock all common sense." 

Turretin proceeds to speak of other cases, in which 
rhetorical figures affect the sense of the word baptize. 
It might certainly be expected that the Professor of 
Theology at Geneva, connected with a church which 
practised sprinkling, would have something to say in its 
behalf. So indeed he has ; but reader ! as I quoted his 
authority on the signification of the word, be pleased to 
consider the fact, that Turretin does not attempt to 
justify sprinkling, as my opponents have done, on the 
ground of the proper meaning of baptize. His argu- 
ments are drawn from other sources. They arise from 
his speculations as a theologian, rather than from his 
principles as a philologist. They are such as we hear 
every day, but in answer to which we often plead that 
proper sense of the word which he fully declares. 
After considering the term itself, he makes a transition, 
to consider baptism as a ceremony ; and for the ceremo- 
nial form of his church, he makes as fair a defence as 
can be made, but it does not rest on the simple meaning 
of the words used in the commandment of Christ. His 
reasons are drawn from a regard to convenience, to 
expediency, the difficulty of immersion in certain cases, 
— the fitness of sprinkling to set forth the idea of the 
rite, which is cleansing, — to exhibit the thing signified, 
namely, the communication of the Spirit, or the appli- 
cation of the blood of Christ. He speaks indeed of the 
word baptize being applied to what he regarded as a 
case of sprinkling in Mark 7 : 4 ; but he has declared 
before, that in such instances, the word is changed by a 
rhetorical figure, and by means of a metalepsis, loses its 
original signification. As our authors say, however, 
that they " have not quoted him for the sake of his 
arguments," we need not stop to discuss them here, as 



f 



21 

they will pass under review in their proper connections. 
Suffice it now to say, that while Turretin marks the 
broad distinction that exists between the simple, the 
native, the proper meaning of the word, and that ever 
changing sense which is produced by tropes and figures, 
he seeks to build up some defence for sprinkling from 
the latter ; none from the former. As a classical scholar 
and a critic, he develops the meaning of the term with 
clearness and truth ; as a Peedobaptist theologian, he 
turns to its tropical or figurative changes, to raise some 
support for the practice of his church. But in conced- 
ing to us the former, he concedes in this argument, all 
that is vital ; for, as in the commission of Christ, all 
acknowledge that the word baptize is not used in a 
figurative sense, it must of course have there its simple 
and proper meaning. 

My reviewers say, moreover, that they have quoted 
Turretin, to show how little confidence they '' can place 
in Mr. Hague's citation of authorities," (pp. 91, 92). 
And perceiving, as they did, that I quoted Turretin's 
authority as a scholar, on the meaning of the word, and 
that he brings that out, chiefly in his criticism on the 
Sybilline verse, they add in the same breath, " He sus- 
tains our use of the Sybilline verse ! " This is coming 
to the test. I am sorry, for their salces, that they have 
not let this alone. As a matter of policy, it would have 
been wise. To their repeated declaration I reply, — if 
Turretin does not directly oppose their use of the 
Sybilline verse, and contradict their assertion, then I 
confess that I know nothing of the subject. Then I am 
altogether unable to understand his meaning, or to 
translate those simple and perspicuous Latin phrases in 
which he has expressed it. Then 1 am entirely incom- 
petent to the work I have undertaken, and deserve to 
be pronounced so by all parties. On this question, my 
reviewers and I are brought at once to a definite issue, 
and on this, will depend very much, the estimate which 



22 

our intelligent readers will form of the worth of our 
assertions and citations. I am willing to abide this 
issue. It is a fortunate thing in a discussion to have 
matters brought to a point. Here, nothing that is said, 
can be attributed to inadvertence. My opponents have 
repeated their declaration, that Turretin sustains their 
use of the Syhilline verse. I have taken this as a sum- 
mons to re-examine his words. If it had appeared that 
he really does sustain them, I could easily give him up, 
without injury to my cause, for, in the former reply, I 
just mentioned his name among those who have given 
immersion as the only proper meaning of the word 
baptism. His criticism on the Syhilline verse, shows 
whether he does so or not. And if it be true, that he 
understands by the word dunai in that verse, nothing 
more than what we mean by the English word dip, if 
his explanatory phrase ''- pessum ire " means simply, " to 
go under the water," — if the words, " ad exitium fundum 
petere," denote merely a harmless submersion, from 
which a person or thing buoyantly rises, then I have 
not only mistaken Turretin, but I am so egregiously in 
the wrong, that I should not expect those who so under- 
stand the matter, to confide at all in my competency to 
investigate any perplexed moral question whatever. If, 
on the other hand, this Syhilline verse has the meaning 
which I assigned it, which Dr. Langhorne gave it in 
those quoted words which my opponents call a '' loose 
translation " (in which he is sustained by those princes 
in sacred literature, Witsius, Beza and Casaubon), and 
especially, if that be the sense expressed by Turretin, 
then, in pertinaciously denying this, my opponents have 
inflicted a serious injury on their own standing as theo- 
logical teachers, and as competent interpreters of the 
books which they read. 

The THIRD ERROR, which the authors of the Rejoin- 
der say they find in my reply to them, is in my claiming 
the authority of Luther in favor of immersion, as being 



23 

the only proper baptism. They thus express themselves, 
on page 93 : " Mr. Hague says, page 76, that Luther 
asserts immersion to be the only proper mode, as the 
only one ^ answering to the signification of baptism/ 
and that he so rendered the Greek word in his version 
of the New Testament. Now this is directly contrary 
to fact." Contrary to fact 1 Well, gentlemen, " to the 
law and to the testimony." The question can be easily 
decided. In my Review, designing to be brief, I did 
not quote Luther's words. Now I will do it. Let the 
old reformer speak for himself, and " he that hath ears 
to hear, let him hear." He says: "The term baptism 
is a Greek word ; it may be rendered into Latin by 
mersio, — when we immerse any thing in water, that it 
may be entirely covered with water. And though that 
custom be quite abolished among the generality (for 
neither do they entirely dip children, but only sprinkle 
them with a little water), nevertheless, they ought to be 
wholly immersed, and immediately to be drawn out 
again ; for the etymology of the word seems to require 
it. The Germans call baptism tauff, from depth, which 
they call tieff, in their language ; as if it were proper 
those should be deeply immersed, who are baptized. 
And truly, if you consider what baptism signifies, you 
shall see the same thing required : for it signifies that 
the old man and our native character that is full of sin, 
entirely of flesh and blood as it is, may be overwhelmed 
by divine grace. The mode of baptism, therefore, ought 
to answer to the signification oj baptism, so that it may 
show forth a sign that is certain and fuHJ' What will 
our readers think of this ? Truly, there is no want of 
perspicuity here. " He that runs may read, and the 
wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err" in under- 
standing such plain language as this.* 

* As some may wish to compare t^e translation of Luther's words with the 
original, we give the passage in this note : 

Nomen, baptismus, Graecum est ; Latine potest verti, mersio, cum immergi- 
mus aliquid in aquam ut totum tegatur aqua." Et quamvis ille mos jam aboleverit 



24 

" To make assurance doubly sure," I will here cite a 
few lines, to show how the doctors of the Lutheran 
church understand Luther's views of this subject. I do 
it the more readily, because the work from which I shall 
•quote is easily accessible to those who wish to consult it 
for themselves. It is the Biblical Theology of two 
learned and orthodox German divines. Doctors Storr 
and Flatt, translated into English by Doctor Schmucker, 
Professor of Theology in the Lutheran Theological 
Seminary at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It was pub- 
lished at Andover, in 1826. In the article on baptism, 
it is said : " The disciples of our Lord could understand 
his command in no other manner, than as enjoining 
immersion ; and that they actually did understand it so, 
is proved partly by those passages of Scripture which 
evidently allude to immersion. Acts 8 : 36, &:c. Rom. 
6 : 4. Col. 2 : 12. 1 Pet. 3 : 21. Moreover, the old 
custom of immersion was also retained a long time in 
the Western church, at least in the cases of those who 
were not indisposed. And even after aspersion had 
been fully introduced in a part of the Western churches, 
there yet remained several, who for some time adhered 
to the ancient custom. Under these circumstances, i( 
is certainly to he lamented, that Luther was not able 

TO ACCOMPLISH HIS WISH WITH REGARD TO THE INTRO- 
DUCTION OF IMMERSION IN BAPTISM, tts he had done in 
the restoration of wine in the eucharistJ^ — (Vol. II, 
290—291.) 

But as Mr. Cooke, and his younger friend, have pro- 
nounced my statement of the case to be " directly 
contrary to the fact," perhaps they will say, also, that 

apud plerosque (neque enim totos demergunt pueros, sed tanlium paucula aqua 
perfundent) DEBEBANT lameii prorsus imniergi, et slatim relrahi. Id enira ety- 
mologia nominis postulare videlur. El Germani quoqiie baptismum Ta i iff vocant, 
a profundilate, quam Tieff lUi sua lingua vocanl, quod profunde demergi conve- 
niat eos, qui baplizantur. Et sane si spectes quid baptismus signified, idem 
requiri videbia. Hoc enim significat ul veius homo, et nativitas nostra plena 
peccatis, quae ex carne et sanguine constat, totam per divinam gratiam demerga- 
tur, id quod copiosius indicabimus. Debebat igitur modus baptizandi respondere 
significationi baptismi, et certum ac plenum ejus ederet sigimin. — Opera, torn, 1, 
fol. 72. Witeberg, 1532.— Or Walch ed., vol. 10, p. 25; 93. 



25 

these Lutheran doctors and German scholars, do not 
understand Luther's meaning so well as they themselves 
do. Indeed, they are morally bound to make this out, 
or else to retract what they have said. If they conclude 
to do the latter, we shall honor them for their candor ; 
if they attempt the former, we shall probabl}^ say no 
more on this point, but leave them " alone in their 
glory." 

In order to estimate, however, the degree of intelli- 
gence which my reviewers have brought to this discus- 
sion, let us notice their explanation of the word Taiifen, 
of which we have already heard Luther himself speak. 
They say, " The German word which Luther uses when 
baptism stands for the religious rite, is not the word 
which means to immerse, if we may place any reliance 
upon the two German lexicons now lying upon our 
table." They then quote two modern dictionaries, 
which give such meanings as, to christen — to give a 
name, he. What an apt explanation is this of the sense 
in which Luther used the term I We all know that 
since his day, the German word which he used to trans- 
late baptize, has been applied in his own country to that 
act of christening, which, he said, was not baptism. 
The church in Germany being established by law, and 
the practice of immersion being opposed by the govern- 
ment, the common modes of expression have thus been 
modified, and modern dictionaries, we know, must give 
the modern and prevailing usage. But did any German 
scholar ever maintain that this word, in its own etymo- 
logical and native sense, the sense in which Luther used 
it, meant merely to christen, to initiate in a church, or 
to give a name? Never. Such an one knows that 
tauchen [to dip] and tanfen were originally the same. 
And Luther himself sets aside all question here, by the 
manner in which he asserts the sense of the word. How 
absurd a thing it is, then, instead of letting Luther 
3 



26 

himself explain a term which he used three centuries 
ago, to turn to a modern dictionary, which gives only 
the present, every-day usage. Is this to be called 
exegesis, criticism — or what is it? 

The FOURTH ERROR which my reviewers assign to 
me, is, in making the statement, that I inserted in my 
reply to them all the meanings of baptize given in 
Scapula's lexicon. They say, ^'Buf Scapula does give 
other meanings." They mention what these are; and 
I will now examine their specification. 

(1.) They say, " He (Scapula) tells us, that the 
word signifies (fgr/Aoc 7iJ'fCT(9M/) "to be upon the sea." 
To this, I reply, first of all, it would be strange indeed 
that Scapula should utter any such absurdity, as it 
would be to say that baptize means " to be upon the 
sea ! " Whoever says so, must be, I should think, quite 
out at sea, and "out of his latitude." The expression 
here referred to in Scapula, is an allusion to a passage 
in Euripides, cited to illustrate a certain application of 
the word. The meaning of the remark in the lexicon 
is this, that in Euripides a ship is said to dip (baptein), 
to denote its condition on the sea. A glance at the 
sentence cited from Euripides, will at once explain the 
whole matter. It occurs in Orestes, line 697, 8. Me- 
nelaus, speaking on the subject of the state, compares 
it to a ship, and takes occasion to say, that a vessel under 
full sail, " pressed by a violent wind, is wont to dip, 
but stands upright again, if one lessen the sail." If 
this be the meaning of the passage, we see what must 
have been the meaning of the lexicographer, in referring 
to it. And if the reader wishes the iDest authority in 
the world, to show that I have not mistaken the sense, 
let him refer to Major's school edition of Euripides, with 
Porson's notes ; and there he will see a note to the line, 
in which the word haptein is rendered, " is wont to dipP^ 
Whether my reviewers will admit that Porson knew any 
thing about this matter, I cannot say ; but even if they 



27 

should not, I presume they will not entirely destroy his 
authority touching the sense of a line in Euripides.* 

(2.) They say, that Scapula declares that Banioi 
means, " to draw up — to fill for drawing up." Here, 
again, as in the case just mentioned^ Scapula, having 
given the definitions of the word, is citing passages to 
illustrate them. I professed to give his definitions, not 
his illustrations. Greek literature is full of such illus- 
trations. I merely wished to exhibit the authority of 
the lexicon on the meaning of the term. The remark 
of Scapula is, that the commentator or scholiast on 
Nicander, in a certain instance, explains hapto as being 
put for draw up, or fill for drawing up. This is one of 
those comments, which may well be called '' extremely 
true ;" a thing which any reader might have perceived, 
without having a scholiast to tell him. If I should say 
to a servant. Go, take your pitcher, dip it in the brook, 
and bring it here, — or. Go, dip some water from the 
spring, — he would not need to be informed that the 
word dip stands for " draw," or " fill for drawing up." 
But if I should gravely give him this information, and 
add, that hence, the words dip, draw, and fill, were all 
one in sense, — exactly synonymous,— it is very likely 
that he would not believe it. There are very few, 
whose native tongue is English, who would not know 
better. Either word might be used, but each has a 
distinct meaning. Now, this is just the case, in regard 
to the passage referred to in Nicander. The phrase is, 
avTi]v ala ^anis — dip the sea-water itself. There is a 
similar case in Euripides (Hec. 607): "But go, you 
old maid-servant, take a vessel, and dipping it (Baipaaa) 

* Kai^ vavg ydcg evradeiaa ngog Biav nodi 

i^axpEv, sffTi] d' avdiQ t^p ;^«^>'5 noda. — Oresfes, 697. 

In Potter's Euripides, the idea is given in a free translation, thus : 

The gallant bark that too much swells her sails, 
Oft is o'erset ; but let her pride be lowered, 
She rides secure, and glories in the gale. 



28 

bring some sea-water hither." On this, the scholiast 
remarks, that BanTsiv stands for, to " let down into the 
water, or any liquid^ This remark of the schoHast, hke 
the other, is " extremely true." Every body knows 
that dijjping implies to let down into the water, and to 
draw up out of it. But does it hence follow, that the 
proper signification of the word dip, is to let down, or to 
draw up, simply, — either one, or the other, or both, 
without involving the idea of putting a thing into a 
liquid ? By no means. Why did not my reviewers 
refer their English readers to Donnegan's Lexicon, with 
English definitions, that they might see for themselves ? 
There the matter is explained in a word, thus : Bajna), 
to draw out Vv-ater hi/ dipping a vessel into it, to fill into 
another vessel. ButitCoj, to dip in a vessel and draw. 
Here, then, the reader sees, that when Scapula refers to 
the remark of the scholiast, he gives no new meaning to 
the word. 

(3.) The third instance of omitting a meaning is thus 
expressed : " He (Scapula) also gives examples under 
the sense of to tinge (which it is strange Mr. Hague did 
not see), to wit, that of painting or staining the hair, 
and pointing a spear with poison, — things not done by 
immersion." To this I reply, that I noticed these 
things, but noticed also, that Scapula sets them down 
as things which are done hy immersion, inasmuch as 
these examples are brought to support the definition 
which I quoted, namely, " to dye, which is done by 
immersing." Any one may see this for himself, if he will 
take the trouble to look at the work. To illustrate the 
action intended, Scapula quotes under the same defini- 
tion, Luke 16 : 24, where it is said, " that he may dip 
(intingat) the tip of his finger in water." How, then, 
can it be said that I omitted a meaning? The expres- 
sion betrays, to say the least, great inattention to facts. 
I should not have thought of occupying so much space 
in exhibiting the sense given in this lexicon ; but since 



29 

my reviewers have questioned my general statements, I 
have cheerfully embraced the opportunity to go into 
particulars. In this way, undoubtedly, my readers will 
in the end be more thoroughly satisfied that I have read 
the lexicons correctly, and that my testimony is sure. 
They will be pleased to observe, however, that in order 
to give all an opportunity to judge for themselves, I 
quoted an English classical Greek lexicon, which Pro- 
fessor Stuart quotes as a standard work, which is in a 
small compass comparatively, and is easily accessible. 
It is Donnegan's ; and as my reviewers have not 
attempted to tarnish my reports of that, by one breath 
of suspicion, I would ask every doubtful inquirer to 
consult it for himself. 

Before leaving this point, I must observe, further, that 
the gentlemen have misquoted me, in saying that I 
praised Scapula as " one of the most celebrated lexicog- 
raphers in Europe." This is a mistake. I praised the 
lexicon — not him whose name it bears ; for while the 
book itself is a standard work, it derives its value from 
the labors of Stephanus, whose production Scapula 
unjustly appropriated to himself. If my reviewers were 
aware of this fact, they did a very great wTong in mis- 
quoting me : if not, the inadvertence is excusable. 

The FIFTH ERROR which my reviewers assign to me, 
is, in saying that they "seem dissatisfied with the mod- 
erate statements of Dr. Woods and Professor Stuart." 
They call this " a fabrication of Mr. Hague's, entire," 
and remark, " we did say, that some of our wTiters on 
the subject, from a desire to show a generous and liberal 
spirit, have made unwarrantable concessions. The 
names of Messrs. Stuart and Woods, however, are not 
mentioned within many pages of this sentence; nor are 
they here referred to by even the remotest implication.''^ 

Nevertheless, I could not avoid the impression, on 
reading the sentence on " unwarrantable concessions," 
that these distinguished writers- were referred to by less 
3* 



30 

than a remote Implication. I have long known that 
they have been blamed in some quarters for allowing so 
much to the Baptists ; and if any other writers on the 
same side of the question have made more liberal con- 
cessions than Professor Stuart, I should be glad to 
know who they are. Why did not the gentlemen tell 
us to whom they did refer ? Published writings are 
public property, and there could have been no indelicacy 
in designating them. A little frankness, on their part, 
would have been better than a naked censure. The 
first impression of many minds will doubtless be, that 
the sentence quoted above was aimed at Professor 
Stuart. He is not far from us — he has been chief 
among those who have led our young ministers to avail 
themselves of the aids of German learning, to the intro- 
duction of which my reviewers are so bitterly opposed"^ 
— his writings are well known in this community, and 
they exhibit a strong contrast to those which the Rev. 
Messrs. Cooke and Towne have presented to us. For 
instance. Professor Stuart says, after an investigation of 
passages, " On the whole, however, the probability 
seems to be in favor of the idea o^ immersion, when we 
argue merely from the force of the words or expressions, 
in themselves considered "f — and then again, after 
objecting to a strict adherence to immersion, says, " On 
the other hand, to maintain that sprinkling or affusion is 
the only mode of baptism, or the only proper mode, 
seems to me to partake of the like sectarian spirit. "J 
But my reviewers say, they " do not allow that to 
immerse is the primary signification of these terms, "*§> 
declare that " immersion is one instance of departure 
from the simplicity of the gospel," and that, "if by 
being right is meant the following of the scriptural mode, 
one, by being immersed, ivill be sure to be tvrong.'' The 
contrast is very marked ; yet, if the gentlemen say they 
had no reference to the liberal statements of Professor 

* Rejoinder, p. 128. t Bib. Repos., Vol. Ill, p. 318. I lb., 373. § Hint?, p. 7. 



31 

Stuart, I will not at all insist on saying that they 
had, but am glad to find that those statements are to 
remain unimpugned, and that some others have 
made concessions more '^unwarrantable" than his. 
Of course, with these latter writers, we should have 
little or no occasion for dispute. 

The SIXTH ERROR on our reviewers' list is thus 
stated. " On page 80,=^ Mr. Hague says, ' the writer 
speaks as if the Jews knew nothing of religious 
immersions;' and then proceeds to tell us, as if he 
considered us ignorant of the fact, that in legal 
purifications ' the people sometimes dipped them- 
selves.' Let the reader turn back to page 9, and he 
will find that we recognize the fact of which Mr. 
Hague so gravely informs us." 

We turn to page 9, and all the recognition of the 
fact that we find there is in these words. "In Heb. 
9 : 10, Paul calls the different ceremonial washings 
done in the tabernacle service, baptisms. Among 
them all, there is not an instance of immersion by 
the priests. In all cases where the subjects bathed, 
there was no official administration." If these words 
positively "recognize the fact," that immersions 
were in use among the Jews as religious services, I 
trust the reader will see some ground for my saying 
that I did not so understand them. I supposed them 
to mean, that no immersions were considered sacred, 
but were regarded as common acts, like those of 
bathing among ourselves. This impression was 
confirmed by the assertions on page 45, where they 
say of the apostles, " they had been educated to regard 
sprinkling as siiffi.cie7it for ceremojiial purification^ 
and from early childhood had seen the leper, and 
the Levites, and indeed the vessels of the temple, 
cleansed by sprinkling." Again, "if the influence 
of their Jewish education was not counteracted by 
some command of Christ, they baptized unquestion- 
ably by pouring or sprinkling."- If, however, our 

* Page 31 of Gould, Kendall & Lincoln's edition. 



32 

authors intended to '' recognize the fact" that reli- 
gioiis immersions were practised by the Jews, I am 
sorry that I did not fully apprehend the force of 
their expressions ; for I should wish their readers to 
understand this recognition clearly. I am glad, 
therefore, that they have now taken occasion to be 
more explicit in asserting that such immersions were 
habitual with that people. If they should speak of 
this point again, I trust they will not forget that the 
Jewish rule, as expressed by Maimonides (the Rabbi 
whom the Jews so much revered that they used to 
call him the lamp of Israel), runs thus: "Whereso- 
ever, in the law, washing of flesh or of clothes is 
mentioned, it means nothing else than the dipping of 
the whole body in water; for if any man wash 
himself all over, except the top of his httle finger, he 
is still in his uncleanness."^^ 

The SEVENTH ERROR, as they call it, is worthy of 
particular attention. It is expressed as follows : 
"On page 71, Mr. Hague says, 'The principle that 
baptizo, hy its own force^ determines the way of 
applying water, is clearly set forth by those three 
great lexicographers of the New Testament, Schleus- 
ner, Wahl, and Bretschneider.' Astonishing! 
Schleusner defines baptizo, 1, to immerse in water; 
2, to wash, sprinkle, or cleanse with water (abluo, 
lavo, aqua purge) ; 3, to baptize ; 4, to pour out 
largely (profundo largiter, &c.) Only one of 
Schleusner's definitions restricts the meaning to 
immersion. Three of them denote the application of 
the fluid by afl'usion. Wahl defines baptizo, first, 
to wash, to perform abhuion, to cleanse. Bret- 
schneider's lexicon gives no ground for Mr. Hague's 
assertion, for he defines baptize, to wash, to perform 
ablution, &c. "We have never yet seen a lexicon 
which sustains Mr. Hague's position." 

I said that this paragraph is v/orthy of special 
attention ; for it contains a key to the mystery which 

* Lighlfojl on Matt. III. 



33 

has puzzled some inquiring minds. The question 
before these has been, — how is it, that those who are 
regarded as honest and Christian men, and who 
profess to be able to read the lexicons, should differ 
outright in their reports of what the lexicons say 7 
I answer, that in this last quotation, we have the 
means of explaining it. Let the reader attend, and 
he will mark the principle which will enable him to 
unravel many such difficulties. My statement is, 
that Schleusner develops " the principle, that bapti- 
zo, by its own force, determines the way of applying 
water." This, Messrs. Cooke and Towne explicitly 
deny. In answering them on this point, I will do 
two'things. First, I will quote an important expla- 
nation of Schleusner, which they have omitted ] and 
secondly, exhibit the p^^ocess by which they make 
Schleusner say that baptize means to sprinkle. 

Schleusner's definition runs thus: " Baptizo, 1, 
PROPEELY, to immerse and dip in, to merge in water. 
It answers to the Hebrew word tabal. Now, because, 
not unfrequently, something is wont to be immersed 
and dipped into the water, so that it may be washed, 
HENCE, 2, it denotes to perform ablution, to wash, to 
cleanse with water."^ Here is a very important 
remark. But this explanatory and restrictive sen- 
tence, which gives the reasons ivhy wash and cleanse 
are subjoined to immerse, as meanings of baptize, 
was unseen by our authors, or else they regarded it 
as signifying just nothing at all. Otherwise, why 
did they omit it ? It forms a part of the sentence 
from which they quoted. Schleusner says, first, that 
, the word means properly to immerse, and then that it 
is used to denote washing, because immersion is a 
common mode of washing. But is this the same as 
to say, that it means to wash in any mode? No. 
It is saying just the reverse. It restricts the sense of 

* We give Schleusner's definition in liis own Latin words: Ba.nTiQo}, 1, pro- 
prie, immergo ae intingo, in aquam mergo. Respondit liebraico 7313. Jam 
quia hand raro aliquid immergi ae intingiin aquam soletut layetur, hunCj 2j ahluo, 
lavOj aqua purgo, notat. 



34 

washing to those cases where immersion is the mode. 
It would have been difficult for Schleusner to express 
himself more guardedly. Having given the proper 
meaning of the word, his restrictive clause was 
designed to show, that though it may denote wash- 
ing, it does, "by its own force, determine the way 
of applying water." Yet this clause our authors 
omit, and tell their readers that Schleusner says the 
word means to wash in any mode ! Now I ask the 
reader, with his eye on that clause, to say for him- 
self, what shall be thought of the accuracy of my 
reviewers, as reporters of the lexicons ? 

(2.) But this is not all. We must observe the 
process by which they make Schleusner say ,that 
baptize means to sprinkle. They do it thus. That 
Latin word, "lavo," which they quote as one of his 
definitions, and which properly means to wash or 
lave, they translate, "to sprinkle." But that Latin 
word is found also in the clause which they have 
omitted, and if their translation be correct, the whole 
sentence will read thus : "Now, because, not unfre- 
quently, a thing is wont to be immersed or dipped 
into water, so that it may be sprinkled, hence, it 
means, 2, to perform ablution, sprinkle, or cleanse 
with water." What an absurdity to attribute to the 
author of a lexicon, to say that a thing is wont to be 
dipped into water, in order to be sprinkled ! Alas, 
poor Schleusner ! thou art to be pitied, if thou 
couldst speak thus, and if not, hard is thy lot to have 
it spoken in thy name ! But the reader sees at once 
that no sane lexicographer ever uttered such a thing. 
And yet, one of two conclusions is unavoidable; 
either Schleusner did say il, or else my revieicers have 
Tnistranslated him. 

But again, on what ground do they translate lavo 
(which means, wash), by the word sprinkle? The 
context does not demand it. No, it is directly against 
it. Will they say that sprinkling is a mode of wash- 
ing, and therefore, inasmuch as baptism denotes 



35 

washing, it must also mean sprinkling? Yes, this 
is the snm and substance of their reasoning. And 
what is it worth ? It proves too much, and therefore 
proves nothing. It would prove that to immerse 
means to sprinkle, and that to sprinkle means to 
immerse. Let us state the several cases more 
formally : 

1. Baptism means washing; 
Sprinkling is a mode of washing; 
Therefore, baptism means sprinkling. 

But then it is evident, also, that immersion denotes 
washing. My reviewers themselves say, on page 34 
of their "Hints to an Inquirer," '•^we object to im- 
mersion, because it is a literal washing." But when 
they open the lexicons which call baptism washing, 
they translate the word by sprinkling! and then 
proceed to say, that the lexicons are on their side ! 
Doubtless, it is easy to bring all the authors in the 
world on their side, at this rate ! In this way, they 
could show that even now, I am myself an advocate 
of their views, without being aware of it ; for by this 
process, they could make it out, that the very word 
immerse means to sprinkle, as will appear in a 
second formulary like the first : 

2. Immersion is washing; 
Sprinkling is washing; 
Therefore, immersion is sprinkling. 

So, too, it may be said again : 

3. Sprinkling means cleansing; 
Immersion means cleansing; 
Therefore, sprinkling means immersion. 

Such is the amount of discrimination, of order and 
arrangement of meanings, which the process of our 
authors involves. Who that has one particle of 
mental independence, would not say within himself, 
by whatever names such interpretation may be sus- 
tained, I trample it under foot as false reasoning, I 
abjure it as devoid of the least glimmering of sound 
sense, justness or consistency." 



36 

In Johnson's dictionary, we find that wet, and 
wash, are given among the definitions of sprinkle. 
Following in the path of our authors as safe guides, 
we would be led to such positions as these : 

4. Sprinkling means wetting; 
Immersion means wetting ; 
Therefore, sprinkling means immersion. 

Or, 

5. Sprinkling means washing ; 
Immersion means washing ; 
Therefore, sprinkling means immersion. 

So we might form other cases, to show that im- 
mersion and sprinkling are identical, for sprinkle is 
sometimes defined, to dye, color, or stain. It is true, 
Dr. Johnson does not say that sprinkle means to wet 
or wash in any mode^ but only in a certain way. 
He defines the jproper meaning of the word to be, 
"to scatter in drops or small masses." These other 
meanings come by implication, or by figures of 
speech. But according to our authors, this last par- 
ticular is unworthy of notice, for "it is enough to 
say, that other meanings are other meanings, come 
from what source they may." (p. 97.) As the 
word sprinkle, therefore, means wet, wash, color, 
and stain, and as these acts may be performed in 
various modes, how obvious it is, that, according to 
Johnson and other lexicographers, sprinkling means, 
the application of water in any way ! I know that 
my reviewers will recoil from this conclusion ; but 
I know, also, that they cannot avoid it, Avithout 
retracting the reasoning by which they make it out, 
that baptize means to sprinkle. If the reader will 
look closely at the subject, he may see for himself, 
that they must adopt this absurdity, or abandon 
their position. They have their choice; but if they 
choose to continue on the ground where they are, the 
sharp point of this conclusion will constantly pierce 
them, and render them uneasy. There is only one 
way of escape. 



37 

The remarks which apply to the case of Schleus- 
ner, apply equally to the other lexicographers men- 
tioned in this connection. They all give immersion 
as the proper meaning of the word, and by that, all 
the applications of the word are modified and limited. 
They may cite passages where the word suggests 
the means of immersion, or the effect of it, but they 
give no mesniiug inconsistent with that primary idea. 
If I should say of a man, that the pouring forth of 
waters from a bursting reservoir immersed or over- 
whelmed him, would any sensible child suppose that 
I intended to say that to immerse means to pour 7 
Yet there would be a case of immersion by pouring. 
The pouring, however, would not be the immersion,. 
but the thing which produced it. And it might be 
truly said, the waters poured forth upon the man, or 
they overwhelmed him, or covered him, or immersed 
him; all these words would harmonize in their 
application to the case, though each has its own 
proper meaning. Such cases are pointed out by the 
lexicographers, when they cite passages wherein the 
word baptizo stands for pouring forth largely (pro- 
fundo largiter, &c,), so as to cover any object, to 
inundate or overwhelm. Like instances occur in 
English writers. Thus, Burke says, that the Baby- 
lonian and Assyrian empires " poured out seas of 
blood." That was a pouring which merged and 
buried nations, — which administered to them "a 
baptism of blood." Yet, because in certain passages 
to " pour forth " may be interchanged with merge or 
bury, who would say that each word properly has 
the same meaning? In other passages they may 
develop their own force, and be set in direct contrast, 
as they are in that sentence of Leviticus 4 : 6,7, 
which 1 have before quoted. Unless a man under- 
stand the proper sense of words, how is it possible 
that he should see the true meaning of an author, or 
at all apprehend the beauty and strength of hi& 



expressions 



4 



38 

In supporting their claim to the lexicons, Messrs. 
Cooke and Towne observe, " Bretschneider's lexicon 
gives no ground for Mr. Hague's assertion, for he 
defines baptize, to wash, to perform ablution, &c." 
The fallacy of such remarks is now sufficiently 
apparent ; but how strikingly it appears in the case 
of Bretschneider ! He seems to desire particularly 
not to be misunderstood, for he says, "in the New 
Testament, the loord is 7iot iised^ except in relation to 
that appointed and sacred submersion^ which the 
Jews practised in order to pledge one to a reforma- 
tion of life, or to take away the gnilt of his sins."=^ 
As to Wahl, in his lexicon of the New Testament 
which I have consulted, he gives to bajJio^ the root, 
no meaning, except to dip in, to immerse. He does 
not even mention to dye, — the sense which Dr. Rob- 
inson says comes by implication, in Rev. 19: 13; 
because Wahl saw, that when we are told of a 
"garment dipped in blood," a child will know that 
dyeing or coloring is a consequence im.plied, without 
a lexicon to announce it. Under baptizo, Wahl gives 
no meaning or example, which is not in consistency 
with the proper sense ojf immersion. But strange to 
tell, my reviewers utter two things most inconsistent 
with each other; for they say, first, " Ave object to 
immersion, because it is a literal washing," and then, 
because Wahl says, baptize denotes washing, they 
exclaim, — icell^ then^ tlicit expj^esses our vieiv, ex- 
actly ! 

The reader will see, that in replying to the re- 
marks which occur under the head of Error 7, I 
have efi'ectually answered those which are made 
under the heads. Error 8, 9 and 10. They repeat 
what has been said before, and our authors get other 
lexicographers on their side, in the same way they 
did Schleusner, Wahl and Bretschneider. It is 

* In N. T. non dicitur nisi de submersione solenni et sacra, que utebantur 
Judaei, ut vel ad vitae emendationem aliquem obslringerent, vel peccatorum eius 
culpam delerent. 



39 

curious to observe, however, that, as if sorely pressed 
for authorities, in this case where the appeal is to 
Greek lexicographers, my reviewers quote Buck, 
one of their ovni denomination, and author of an 
English theological dictionary. Did they consider 
this quite apposite? I might as well have quoted 
the Biblical Cyclopaedia of Jones (which is now 
before me, on the same shelf with Buck's dictionary), 
and which says, "Many writers of respectability 
maintain that the Greek verb baptizo^ as well as its 
Hebrew synonym, sometimes denotes sprinkling ; 
but the various passages to which they appeal, will 
lead every candid mind to a diiferent conclusion." 
But it is not in place here to quote English diction- 
aries. When the point in question is the lexicogra- 
phy of a Greek word, we must appeal to Greek 
lexicons. My reviewers, however, have quoted also 
Latin dictionaries, in such a connection, as would 
lead one who had never seen them, to suppose they 
were Greek lexicons. Thus, they mention the 
names of Facciolatus and Forcellinus, two learned 
Italians, who composed a large Latin dictionary, in 
their list of lexicographers. And although these 
writers were members of the Romish church, which 
practises sprinkling or pouring, yet they do not give 
either of these, as meanings of the Greek word. 
They define it simply, immerse, wash ; and if, as we 
have seen, Messrs. Cooke and Towne " object to 
immersion, because it is a literal washing^'' (p. 34), 
on what ground can they claim the authority of 
these Italians in their favor? As the name of the 
first of these authors is wrongly spelt, each time that 
it is mentioned, that fact suggests a doubt whether 
my reviewers have very carefully read them. 

In the closing paragraph on the subject of errors, 
the gentlemen present a list of lexicographers, whom 
they claim as on their side, touching the meaning of 
this Greek word. I doubt whether such a classifica- 
tion of names was ever published before, or ever 



40 

shall be again. We see the names of Greek lexicog- 
raphers, known throughout the world, associated 
with those of compilers of Latin dictionaries, and of 
persons scarcely known at all. We happened to 
show the list to the President of a literary institution, 
who is much interested in the subject of lexicogra- 
phy. He was both astonished and amused, and 
inquired, -'Have not Ainsworth and Cole got out of 
their latitude? Did Facciolatus and Forcellinus 
write a Greek lexicon 7 Did these men's names ever 
chance to come in juxtaposition before? 1 think 
not." What an association of «?^^/io?'«7/e5.' Schleus- 
ner, Stephanus, Ainsworth, Cole, Passow, Gross ! ! 
This sort of order, or rather cUsovder, looks like 
chance-work; it bears not the marks of intelligent 
design. 

The paragraph closes with the name of Schreve- 
lius, whom it designates, "that great master and 
critic of the Greek tongue." Alluding to this sen- 
tence, a friend remarked to me, with some emphasis, 
" Here we have a key to the literary estimates of 
these gentlemen." Compared with some others 
already mentioned, "Schrevelius is notorious as a 
poor lexicographer." Wolf, surely a competent 
judge, expresses tho common sentiment of Greek 
critics, when he says, "the Manual Lexicon of 
Schrevelius is not good; for he could not conjugate; 
he gives the forms falsely ; he did not understand 
Greek. "^ It was said in England, half a century 
ago, that Schrevelius's editions of ancient authors 
were "more elegant than correct;"! and it is ob- 
served of him in the Encyclopaedia Americana, that 
he exhibited " more industry than taste or judgment." 
We do not mention these things because Schrevelius 
says any thing on the meaning of the word in ques- 
tion, with Avhich we disagree, but to show the 
discrimination of my reviewers in estimating authors 
and books. We remember well, when in the days 

* Wolf's AUerlhunswissenschaftj Vol. I, p. 193. f Encyclopeedia Britianica. 



41 

of boyhood, Schrevelius's lexicon was our daily 
companion at school, for years in succession. Our 
teacher, in those days, obliged us to commit to mem- 
ory Schrevelius's Latin definitions of Greek words, 
and we shall always remember, that all the render- 
ings he gives to baptizo are mergo^ ahluo^ lavo^ — to 
merge, perform abhition, and to wash; but as merg- 
ing is washing, we never thought that the word 
which means to merge, means to wash by sprinkling! 
We never extracted that idea from Schrevelius, nor 
do we believe that it ever entered into his mind.^ 

Quite in keeping with their way of reporting 
lexicons, is our reviewers' mode of reporting other 
books. They publish in an emphatic manner the 
declaration, "Mr. Carson admits that the lexicogra- 
phers are against him." But the truth is, that in 
regard to the point which we are now examining, — 
whether the lexicons give to baptize the sense of 
sprinkle, — Mr. Carson makes no such admission, but 
asserts exactly the opposite. It would seem as if 
my reviewers had never read Mr. Carson's Avork. 
He never read in the lexicons what they have dis- 
covered, that sprinkle is given as a meaning of 
baptizo. The great question which he is discussing 
is this, — whether the two words, hapto and baptizo^ 
are "exactly the same as to signification" (^iaodwa^av). 
He speaks of those who say that they are so. He 
says (p. 13), "Writers in general have argued from 
the one word to the other, as if they perfectly cor- 
responded in meaning." The difference he asserts 
to be this; that bapto is never used to denote the 
ordinance of baptism ; that for this baptizo is always 

* The manner in which my reviewers have treated this whole subject of lex- 
icography, is very singular. The lexicons which they quote, do not sustain them. 
Many of their other authorities fail. Mr. Leigh, however, an English writer, to 
whom they refer, in his work entitled, " Critica Sacra," does make some remarks 
on the word, which are apposite to their purpose ; but he quotes as authority Dr. 
Daniel Featley, a heated and violent controversialist, who wished to employ the 
civil powerto exterminate the Baptists in England ; the persecutor against whom 
Milton employed li is pen, and who entreated "the most noble lords" that the 
poet "might be cut off as a pestilent Anabaptist." Yet, even Leigh acknowl- 
edges, at the close of his article, that xhQ proper meaning of the word is immerse, 

4* 



42 

employed ; and that while the first word often ! 
denotes dyeing, the second is never used for that 
purpose. In regard to this distinction^ Professor 
Stuart has declared that Mr. Carson has proved it 
incontrovertibly, and says, that from personal exam- 
ination, he has come to the same conclusion. From 
this it would follow, that all the passages in which 
haj)to is cited to illustrate the ordinance of baptism, 
are irrelevant, as that word is never applied to the 
rite. Touching the primary meaning of either word, 
Mr. Carson says (p. 80), "I have no quarrel with 
the lexicons;" and adds, "Baptist writers have 
always appealed with the greatest confidence to the 
lexicons even of Psedobaptist writers. On the con- 
trary, their opponents often, take refuge in a supposed 
sacred or scriptural use, that they may be screened 
from the fire of the lexicons." (p. 80.) 

The fault which Mr. Carson finds with the lex- 
icons, is in relation to their defect^ in not marking 
well the difference between borrowed and figurative 
meanings, and those which are literal and proper. 
He says, "I maintain, that in figures there is no 
different meaning of the word. It is only a figurative 
application. The meaning of the word is always 
the same. Nor does any one need to have a figura- 
tive application explained in any other way than by 
giving the proper meaning of the word. When this 
is known, it must be a bad figure which does not 
contain its own light. It is useless to load lexicons 
with figurative applications, except as a concord- 
ance." This is the amount of Mr. Carson's criticism 
on the lexicons. He expressly declares, " I admit 
that the meaning which they take out of the word, 
is always implied in the passage where tlie word 
occurs. But I deny that this meaning is expressed 
by the word."^ Here we see that Mr. Carson's 

* A remark precisely in accordance with Mr. Carson'a position, occurs in the 
prefai-e of Ricliardson's Dictionary, London edition, p. 39. The writer is speak- 
ing of Dr. Johnson's want of care in not adhering more closely to tlie principle he 
had laid down, respecting the development of the proper meaning and the conse- 



43 

accurate and discriminating mind insists on a just 
distinction between the proper and the borrowed, as 
w^ell as figurative meanings of a word (a point, on 
which he has had much controversy with the Cath- 
oUcs) — censures, the lexicons, and Enghsh diction- 
aries, too, for not marking it — says that the real 
difference between hapto and baptizo they have over- 
looked ; but is this admitting that they sanction w^hat 
he deems the enormous error, of saying that baptize 
means to sprinkle ? Far from it. To what cause, 
then, shall it be attributed, that Messrs. Cooke and 
Towne have left their readers with the impression, 
that Mr. Carson concedes as to the lexicons, what 
they are endeavoring to maintain? Let the reader 
decide. 

In summing up their remarks on the lexicons 
(p. 97), our authors say, "The reader is now pre- 
pared to estimate correctly the validity of Mr. 
Hague's claim to all the lexicographers. We sol- ^ 

EMNLY AVER, THAT NO LEXICOGRAPHER WITHIN OUR 
KNOWLEDGE, IN ANY COUNTRY, AGREES WITH HIM." I 

am sorry that they use that word "solemnly" here. 
It seems to indicate in the mind more heat than light, 
considering the occasion. What light have they 
given the reader, that by its aid he might be "pre- 
pared to estimate correctly" those testimonies which 
I presented ? Strong assertions^ frequently repeated, 
that those scholars whom I referred to, and many 
others also, define the word in question, to sprinkle. 
Why did they not include Donnegan in their list 7 
Do they not know him? Did I not point him out? 
At Princeton and Andover, and by men of all creeds, 
his work has been acknowledged to be of standard 
character. Did they omit it, because it is in Eng- 
lish, and easy of access ? I have not now met their 

quential APPLICATION of words, and says, "There is one general error pervading 
the explanations, imputable to interpreters in general, who, 'seeking the meaning 
of a word singly from the passages in which it is found, connect with it the mean- 
ing of some oilier word or words in the sentence.' This is to interpret the import 
of'the CONTEXT, and not to explain the individual meaning of the word." 



44 

assertions by mere counter-assertions. I have ex- 
hibited to the reader tlie grounds on which I deny 
their statements. (1.) I have shown, that in quoting 
the lexicons they have omitted important explanatory 
clauses. (2.) That if their version of tiie Latin 
definitions is just, the lexicographer is made to utter 
palpable absurdity. (3.) That in claiming the 
lexicographer as on their side, for such a reason as 
they give, they contradict themselves. (4.) That 
the p?^ocess by which they bring the lexicons on to 
their side, would prove equally well, that to sprinkle 
means to immerse. (5.) That their reasoning, by 
confounding important distinctions in defining words, 
could be used to prove that any Baptist writer is on 
their side, as easily as the lexicographers. 

The grand, the fatal mistake of my reviewers in 
reading and reporting the lexicons, in all that they 
say connected with philology, is expressed in a short 
sentence on page 97: "It is enough to say, that other 
meanings are other meanings, coine from what source 
they mayP This is very different from the opinion 
of Dr. Johnson, who considered it to be of vast 
importance to mark very closely different kinds of 
meanings, and from what sources they came. He 
thought that it was the great business of a lexicog- 
rapher to do this. In his " Plan of an English Dic- 
tionary," he says, "In explaining the general and 
popular language, it seems necessary to sort the 
several senses of each word, and to exhibit, first, its 
natural and primitive signification, and then to give 
its consequential meaning." This is a principle of 
immense importance. We have already noticed, for 
instance, that "to wet" is a consequential meaning 
of such words as dip, swim, float, sink, immerse, 
pour, and sprinkle ; but it is not a definition of either 
of them. If a man should assert that it was, should 
reason on it as such, saying, that it was annexed to 
one or all of those words in a dictionary, what would 
be thought of his perspicacity? If a servant, when 



45 

directed to dip his pitcher, should sprinkle water 
over it, and then maintain that he had obeyed the 
direction, because he had found in a dictionary that 
dip means " to wet," and therefore dip must mean to 
apply water i?i any mode^ what would be thought of 
his aptness? And if his employer should patiently 
reason with him, and tell him that the proper mean- 
ing of dij) is not simply "to wet," and that the 
proper meaning of sprinkle is not simply '' to wet," 
but that those words denote specific acts, of which 
" to wet" is the consequence, — that therefore it is a 
meaning which only comes by implication^ — what if 
he should reply, ' Well, that does not alter the case, 
''''Other meanings are other meanings^ come fro7n 
what source they may /" ' What comment would be 
heard on his spirit of obedience, and on the use which 
he had made of his learning? Would it be said that 
his knowledge had aided him to explain or to explain 
away his master's commands ? Would it be said 
that he had properly understood the dictionaries 
which he had read? If he would truly have under- 
stood them, in such a case, then our authors have 
understood the lexicons ; but if otherwise, then they 
have misread them as egregiously as he would have 
done, for their mode of interpretation is precisely the 
same. 

Having thus minutely examined their charges of 
error, and shown the proofs and grounds on which 
I pronounce them to be utterly fallacious, I proceed 
to consider the next most important section of their 
Rejoinder, which is entitled, 

PRINCIPLES OF PHILOLOGY. 

We have already been led to some development of 
these, but a further consideration of several points 
appears to be desirable. I regard this subject as 
important, because it involves the turning point of 
the controversy. If I have succeeded in this part of 
the argument, my success is complete ; if I have 



46 

failed here, my failure is irretrievable. If the word 
baptize, in the commission of Christ, really means to 
sprinkle or to pour, there can be no argument to 
sustain immersion. The practice of all antiquity 
would not avail to set aside the supreme law ; and 
to persist in the practice of immersion, would be 
rebellion against the Head of the church. 

That the meaning of the word is the hinge of the 
question, our authors virtually declared in their 
"Hints to an Inquirer." In commencing that chap- 
ter entitled, "Meaning of the word Baptize," they 
say, " The argument for immersion is founded upon 
the assumption that the words baptism and immer- 
sion convey the same idea. But this is a great 
mistake." This statement of the ground of the 
argument for immersion is undoubtedly correct, and 
I proceeded to show that it was no mere " assump- 
tion " or "mistake." At the outset, I commended 
the author of the Hints, for narrowing the field of 
discussion. Many other advocates of sprinkling or 
pouring as baptism, have admitted all we ask touch- 
ing the meaning of the word, but have pleaded for 
their various modes, on the ground of ancient cus- 
tom, prevailing practice, or convenience ; and some 
have insisted, that literal conformity to the primitive 
practice is not essential to obedience. The article of 
Professor Stuart, in the Biblical Repository, Vol. Ill, 
has in it much that I approve. But when he advo- 
cates the doctrine, that all modes of Christian rites 
may change with circumstances, — that, in case of 
necessity, the Lord's supper may be celebrated with 
"fish and water" (p. 367), — that "the external 
matters pertaining to religion" may be "modified 
by time and place, by manners and customs" 
(p. 373), then I feel obliged to express my dissent, 
simply on the ground, that Jesus has said, "If ye 
love me, keep 7ny commandments.'^^ When the same 
author declares (p. 313), "that the predominant 
usage of the words bapto and baptizo is, to designate 



47 

the idea of dipping, plunging, or overwhelming," — ■ 
"that Christians began somewhat early to deflect 
from the ancient practice of immersing" (p. 376), I 
am pleased with his openness and candor ; but when 
he urges the adoption of that mode of baptism which 
is the most instructive^ and says that "in the East, 
where bathing is so common, and where religious 
rites especially have required ablution, it may be 
more significant in some cases to immerse; but in the 
west and north, where such rites have long ceased, 
immersion can have no more significancy than 
affusion or sprinkling," I cannot but feel that he has 
turned his eye away from the true standard of prac- 
tice, and substituted a varying principle of expe- 
diency for God's law and testimony. When, there- 
fore, the authors before us seemed ready, in opening 
their discussion, to abide by the true meaning of 
the word baptize^ and to let their cause rest on their 
success in showing the fundamental position of the 
Baptists touching that word to be a mistake, I was 
encouraged to write, with the hope that the contro- 
versy would soon be brought into closer quarters, 
and possess a character of more definiteness and 
certainty. 

For these reasons, on opening this second pam- 
phlet of my opponents, I w^as particularly desirous to 
see how they would dispose of the reasonings, facts, 
and testimonies on " the meaning of the word," 
which I had laid before them. I passed by other 
sections, to notice that entitled, Princi'ples of Philol- 
ogy^ and found that it commenced with a statement 
of what was called /'the grand principle" of my 
philology. Now it is an important thing to state a 
fundamental principle. The perspicacity and fair- 
ness which enable one to do this well, are essential 
qualifications for a competent advocate of any cause. 
I had hoped, therefore, in this case, to see a state- 
ment which I could pronounce a just one. Instead 
of this, I find the following : ^' The grand principle 



48 

of Mr. Hague's philology seems to be this, — that if 
all the various meanings of a word can be traced, by 
any relation, however fanciful^ to any one of those 
meanings, that one embraces the whole in itself" 
This report of the subject is about as correct as that 
which was once given of Paul's speech on Mars' 
Hill, by some philosophers who had heard it, and 
who said, " he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange 
gods." This strange principle was no more a part 
of my philology, than were the strange gods a part 
of Paul's theology. In both cases the reporters said, 
"it seems to be so;" but this arose from the want of 
close attention. Having made a definite statement 
of my principles, no extraordinary effort was required 
to discover them. 

What were these principles ? If the reader will 
turn to page 19 of my pamphlet, he will find them 
laid down in the words of Ernesti, quoted from 
Professor Staart's translation of that writer on "the 
principles of interpretation." They are these : 

1. " The literal meaning is not to be deserted, 
without reason or necessity." 

2. " liet not the translator commute genus for 
species, nor antecedent for consequent." 

These canons are self-evident, and of vital impor- 
tance. Neglect them, and all language is uncertain. 
The whole system of interpretation is " without form 
and void," and darkness covers the face thereof 

Let us look at these rules more closely. According 
to the first, the literal sense must always have 
precedence over the figurative. "The literal sense 
of words," says Ernesti (p. 7), "is the sense which 
is so connected with them, that it is first in order ^ 
and is spontaneously presented to the mind, as soon 
as the sound of the word is heard." If any one 
were asked the meaning of the word " ea/," he 
would say, " to devour food with the mouth." But 
when we speak of "a man's vices eating up his 
health and money," the plainest man would see that 



49 

the word borrowed a meaniDg from the context, and 
that, departing by necessity from the literal sense, it 
must be miderstood figuratively, to mean consume. 
But if he should understand it figuratively, when 
the literal sense would apply, as in the phrase, 
"cannibals eat human flesh," he would act absurd- 
ly. Ernesti observes, again (p. 21), that "the first 
important distinction or division of words, in respect 
to their meaning, is into proper and tropical, that is, 
literal and figurative. A proper word is a definite 
name^ given to a certain thing ; a tropical (or figura- 
tive) word, is one used out of its proper, that is, 
original sense. And the first duty of an interpreter, 
in respect to tropical language, is, to rightly distin- 
guish it from language not tropical, so as not to 
mistake the one for the other." In the chapter on 
the meaning of words, it is said : " There can be no 
certainty at all in respect to the inter jpretatioii of any 
passage^ unless a kind of necessity compels us to 
affix a particular sense to a word ; tuhich sense, as I 
have said before, must be one ; and u?iless there are 
special reasons for a tropical meaning, it must be the 
LITERAL senseP This is the leading principle of the 
philology advocated in my RevieWj—a self-evident 
rule, laid down in a standard German work, and 
published as a text-book at Andover, years ago. 

The other self-evident rule, which I have quoted 
from the same work, is equally important: "Let 
not the translator commute genus for species, nor 
antecedent for consequent." How remarkably my 
reviewers have neglected this rule, has already 
appeared. A striking instance of it occurred in their 
translation of the Latin extract from Turretin 
(which, however, contained the words of Vossius, 
adopted by Turretin), where they rendered the 
specific name of a figure, which is metalepsis, by the 
generic name, trope. If this mode of translation 
were allowed, inextricable confusion would follow. 
The most essential distinctions, as to the sense of 
5 



50 

words, Avoiild be covered up. As words have vari- 
ous senses, it is very necessary to observe " from 
what sources they come." The meaning of a word 
is one thing; the figurative or the consequential 
APPLICATION of that meaning is another thing. The 
consequential meaning of words comes by implicatioii^ 
but it must be distinguished from the jnoper mean- 
ing. For instance : to consume is a consequence of 
eating ; the word eat^ therefore, impHes consuming. 
But to say a thing is consumed, does not involve, by 
implication, the idea of its being eaten. These 
meanings are distinct, and, as the rule says, must 
not be confounded. There is a vast, an essential 
difference, therefore, between denoting the idea of 
consumption, by a word that literally means con- 
sume, and one that only involves that idea by impli- 
cation. Plain as this distinction is, our authors are 
bUnd to it, or, at an}?- rate, openly deny it. Speaking 
of my appeal to the lexicons, they say (p. 97), "He 
appeals to Robinson's lexicon, as one which confines 
the meaning to immerse, and yet he quotes other 
meanings. The same is true of others named by 
him. Mr. Hague seeks, indeed, to evade the point, 
by saying that all the other meanings are figurative, 
or derived,^ or come by implication. This will be 
more fully answered hereafter. It is enough to say 
here^ that other oneariings are other meanings, come 
from what source they may.^^ This last sentence, as 
I have said, involves their fatal mistake. It is a 
key, to unlock what has been a mystery to some, 
that the reverend gentlemen should be so bold in 
asserting that the standard lexicons are with them. 
Confounding as they do, things which difler, blind to 
these clear and important distinctions, they trample 
on the plainest laws of language, without seeming to 
be aware of it, and draw from the lexicons what 
their authors never thought of inditing. 

Afterwards (on p. 106), they refer to this point 

* The word derived our authors have inserted for me. 



51 

again, and furnish new proof that I was right, in 
saying that they did not read the lexicons correctly. 
They observe, " In his remarks on the several 
definitions given to the word haptizo in Robinson's 
lexicon, Mr. Hague says, ' That abbreviated word, 
denoting by implication^ is very important in this 
case, and involves the principle which Mr. Towne 
has overlooked; and by overlooking it, he misun- 
derstands the lexicons.' " This grave charge, which 
I was under the necessity of bringing against their 
philology, they ought to have met very fully, if they 
could have done it. But what is their reply ? As 
follows: "It seems, then, that we have not yet 
learned to read the lexicons, because we see not how 
to trace all the meanings which branch off by impli- 
cation, to one meaning, and make the whole family 
of significations attached to each word but one 
meaning. Upon this principle, the whole controver- 
sy is in fact made to turn." Now, any reader can 
see that this reply does not touch the case in hand. 
No, gentlemen, turn not your attenti^-n away from 
the real point at issue. I have not complained of 
any inability in you to make all meanings only one, 
but of your confounding figurative applications, and 
those senses which exist only by implication^ with 
the literal meaning, placing them on the same level, 
reasoning from them as if they were the same thing, 
and saying, 7io m>atter from what source they come ! 
This is my indictment, for which, certainly, there is 
just occasion ; but, overlooking it entirely, you plead 
"not guilty" to another, of which I had said or 
thought nothing. 

Here, while I write, I am constrained to pause a 
moment, seriously to consider the question, whether 
the authors of the Rejoinder never noticed such 
obvious principles of interpretation, as those which 
I have quoted. Or, if they have noticed them, have 
they never so felt their worth, as habitually to 
remember them, and apply them in practice 1 Have 



52 

they never, in their elementary studies, learned to 
distinguish between the meanings which words have 
as simple names of objects, and when used as tropes 
or figures; between meanings which are called 
native, proper, or literal, and those which co-exist 
with them simply by implication, and on that 
account are modified by them? Unless such dis- 
tinctions be observed, it is in vain to talk of the 
principles of philology, or the science of interpreta- 
tion ; we have no better means of ascertaining with 
certainty the meaning of language, than have the 
aborigines of the forest. Lexicography can then 
present us with nothing but a chaos of usages, and 
the best lexicographers are those against whom Dr. 
Gregory Sharpe launches a censure, when he speaks 
of those " who remove the primary sense out of its 
place, and break that chaiii of significations, so 
necessary to preserve consistency, and relieve the 
burthen of remembrance." '^ 

But as our authors speak of principles of philology, 
it is natural to ask, on what principle they profess to 
justify their mode of interpreting words. This they 
intended to give us, in the following sentence : " Per- 
mit us to remind Mr. Hague, that secondary mean- 
ings shoot forth from the primary significations of 
almost all words — a grand characteristic of language 
which he seems wholly to overlook. They proceed 
generally from cause to effect ; and it not unfrequent- 
ly happens, that the primary meaning is merged or 
lost in some remote secondary." This sentence 
contains a statement of two things ; first, of a prin- 
ciple^ secondly, of an historical /ac^. 

(1.) As to the principle, there is no dispute about 
its truth. I never knew it to be denied, " that sec- 
ondary meanings shoot forth from the primary sig- 
nifications of almost all words." Every man knows 
it, who has thought a moment on the subject. It 
would be very difiicult for me to "overlook this 

* See Preface to Richardson's Dictionary, Section II. 



53 

grand characteristic of language." The difference 
between the views of my opponents and my own, is 
not on this point, but on the importance of the ques- 
tion, how these " secondary meanings shoot forth." 
They say. No matter how^ — no matter from what 
source they come. That question, they think, need 
not be looked at, — it may as well be covered up. I 
say, it is a great matter to see how they come ; for 
if they come only by metaphor, or by some other 
figure of speech, or consequentially, or by implica- 
tion, then they co-exist with the primary meaning, 
and are explained and limited by it. 

(2.) As to the historical fact stated here, that it 
" not unfrequently happens, that the primary mean- 
ing is merged or lost in some remote secondary," 
that is a thing to be made out only by historical 
proofs, in the case of each word whereof it is assert- 
ed. My reviewers state, as a fact^ what sometimes 
happens, and then reason from it, as if they had laid 
down a fixed and universal 'prbicvple. This state- 
ment can avail them nothing in this discussion, 
unless they can prove historically, that before the 
gospels were written, — before the commission was 
given, — the primary meaning of haptizo had been 
"merged and lost^^ in some secondary. Let them 
do this, if they can. In that effort, they would have 
all the lexicons against them, without any mistake. 
If they should succeed, they would gain immortal 
honor, not merely as theologians, but as philologists ; 
because it would be bringing to light what was 
unknown to Stephanus, or Schleusner, or even to 
Schrevelius, 

It is quite remarkable, however, that while our 
authors state as a fact, that primary meanings of 
words are sometimes lost, they do not sustain their 
statement by any instance of it. If they suppose 
that they have done so in the case of the word 
SPRING, their mistake is very great indeed. My 
assertion of the modifying power of the primary 



54 

meaning, they designate "Mr. Hague's principle of 
one meaning;" and say, let the reader apply it to 
the following sentence: "In the spring of 1840, a 
man by the name of Spring, made a spring over a 
ditch, and fell into a spring on the opposite side, and 
broke the spring of his watch." This is a capital 
example, and I thank the reviewers for not being 
deterred from printing the sentence by any scruples 
touching its inelegance. I unite with them in asking 
the reader to apply to it the principle which I have 
exhibited, — the modifying power of the primary 
meaning. The word spring is of Saxon origin. 
The verb gives rise to the noun, and its meaning is, 
'^rise — ajHse — or raiseJ^^ This meaning has various 
applications. 1. It denotes the rising up of seeds or 
plants from the ground; as in Joel 2: 22, "the 
pastures of the wilderness do spring." Hence, it is 
applied as a name to that season, in which vegeta- 
tion, springing forth afresh, exhibits the aspect of a 
general resurrection; and its primary meaning so 
limits it, that it could not be given as a name to that 
season in which vegetation decays, or that in which it 
lies enshrouded in its wintry tomb. 2. It denotes the 
rising up of water from the earth, and is applied as 
a name to a living fountain ; but its primary mean- 
ing, far from being lost^ so governs it, that it could 
not be applied to a stagnant body of water, a cistern, 
or a reservoir. 3. It may denote the rising up of a 
man from the ground, and thus may stand for the 
word leap, or jump ; but its primary meaning so rules 
its application, that it cannot be made to designate a 
slow, horizontal motion, such, for instance, as follows 
from one's being dragged or propelled along. 4. It is 
applied, also, to any thing elastic; that is (says 
Richardson), "to anything which, when stretched 
or pressed, rises or returns again ;" and its primary 
meaning so guides it, that while it may point out the 
source of motion in a watch, it cannot be made to 

* Richardson's English Dictionary. 



55 

designate any other part. 5. It is used to indicate the 
rising of a plank from its place, or a sudden motion 
in a thing from its own elastic force, and hence may 
denote a crevice, a crack, start, or leak ; but its 
primary meaning so rules it, that it cannot denote an 
aperture made by cutting, wearing, burning, or 
corrosion. 6. It is applied, by a metaphor, to denote a 
motive of conduct, which is called a '' spring of 
action" in man; but its primary meaning still lives 
and reigns, sways the sceptre over it, defines the 
bounds of its application, commands it to designate 
that lohich gives rise to action, and forbids it to point 
out the mere consequence or the effect which follows 
action. T. Lastly, the word spring may be transferred 
as a name to an individual, and so may the names 
of other seasons ; but then, '^ a man's name " is not 
a meaning either of spring, summer or winter. 

Now, then, I have accepted my reviewer's chal- 
lenge. I have applied the general principle which I 
advocate, to the sentence which they have construct- 
ed for the sake of trying its strength; and what is 
the result? I have shown, that in no instance is the 
primary meaning merged or lost, — that it not only 
exists, but "lives in state," rules like a king over all 
its secondaries, and says to each, "thus far shalt 
thou go, and no farther." It will not allow them to 
forget from lohat source they come^ but makes them 
mindful of their origin, and the limits of their power. 
Such philology as that of my opponents, would teach 
them rebellion, and urge them to throw off their 
allegiance; but "order is Heaven's first law," and 
they are bound by a sway which they cannot break. 
The facts of the case show that our authors' criticism 
is false. I lay it in the dust, where it belongs, and, 
passing the very test which they propose, come forth 
with the clearer proof that their principles of philol- 
ogy are erroneous. 

In regard to this point, my reviewers could not do 
themselves a greater service than to ponder the truth 



56 

contained in the following sentence, from the preface 
of Richardson's EngUsh Dictionary. It directs at- 
tention to the difference between the meaning of a 
word^ and the appHcation of that meaning. The 
writer says, " While investigating the meaning and 
consequent usage or application of words, 1 have 
considered it a duty incumbent upon the lexicogra- 
pher, to direct his view, — 1st, to the etymology and 
literal meaning ; 2d, to the metaphorical application 
of this meaning; 3d, to the application consequent 
or inferred from the literal meaning; and 4th, to the 
application consequent or inferred from that which is 
metaphorical." Again, he exhibits it as the duty of 
a lexicographer, to give '-the intrinsic meaning of 
the word, and thence to trace the applications in 
which it has been employed." Had they duly con- 
sidered this, they would have written diiferently 
from what they have in the following sentences : 
" For the sake of illustration, let us suppose that 
baptizo signified originally to immerse. As washing 
is sometimes the effect of immersing, the word might 
easily pass from its first specific signification, to 
denote simply the effect^ and in process of time, 
wholly displace the specific meani?ig.^^ Here we 
see, that our authors admit as a supposition, what 
Professor Stuart states as a fact, that the original 
meaning of the word is immerse. Well, if, when 
immerse was an adequate rendering of the word, it 
would naturally denote washing, because this is 
implied in immersion, we can see at once, that bap- 
tize may mean "wash" by implication, without the 
original meaning being displaced. The two senses 
would co-exist, and the one would limit the other. 
This supposition, then, while it intimates a loss of 
the original meaning among the Greeks, which can- 
not be proved, sets forth the original state of the 
word exactly as the lexicons declare it. It directs 
our eye to a time, before the transition was cftected, 
when the word meant both immerse and wash, at 



57 

once, — the latter by implication, and modified by the 
former. It therefore illustrates the lexicons, which 
now exhibit both meanings, the second, however, in 
subordination to the, first. The case, as here stated, 
touching the former condition of the two meanings, 
meets all the demands of the word, as it occurs in 
Greek writings. Why, then, should the gentlemen 
urge so fondly the idea of a cha?ige7 Why so un- 
willing to allow the second meaning to live, unless 
it shall crowd the first out of existence, to occupy its 
place, and even when it is dead and buried, leave it 
no monument or epitaph, to tell the time and man- 
ner of its decease 1 Must Greek literature bend to 
the practice of our Western churches, and provide 
changes to correspond with our changes of times, 
circumstances, and habits 7 The condition of our 
architecture in this country, has suggested to some 
writer the thought, that as we are an or»^m«/ people, 
we ought to have an original order, neither Ionic, 
Doric, nor Corinthian. This might be comparatively 
pardonable, considering that that is a mere matter of 
taste ; but to recast Greek literature into a modern 
mould, to give it a dress suited to our manners, and 
to make it familiar with our changes of custom, — 
why this would be achieving more than the mightiest 
scholars of the old world ever dreamed of 

So clear is the evidence in regard to the original 
meaning of the word baptize, that when Professor 
Stuart comes to speak of its meaning in the New 
Testament alone, he goes as far as he possibly can, 
in sustaining our views, without abandoning the last 
inch of ground, in the scriptural defence of the prac- 
tice of his own church. After saying that the Greek 
fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with 
Greek, understood the word to mean immersion, and 
felt themselves sustained by the classics, he proceeds 
to say: "For myself, then, I cheerfully admit, that 
baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the 
rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the 



58 

idea, that this rite was usually performed by immer- 
sion, but not always."=^ Here, that learned writer 
states the broad rule of scriptural baptism to be 
immersion. Why, then, does he provide for some 
exceptions^ by the phrase, " not alioays^''^ as opposed 
to '•^usually 7'''' Simply because the cases of Corne- 
lius, of the jailer, and the converts on the day of 
Pentecost,! suggest difficulties in the way of immer- 
sion. But against such a mighty array of evidence 
as the professor brings in favor of immersion, these 
supposed inconveniences are lighter than the "small 
dust of the balance." Actual impossibilities would 
determine those cases against immersion, of course ; 
but inconveniences can effect nothing against a 
positive statement of inspired apostles. When we 
are told that Jesus went from Galilee to Jordan, to 
be baptized of John, we might as well let the incoiv- 
venience of so long a walk deter us from understand- 
ing that simple statement in its obvious sense. 

Of all the words in the Greek tongue, there was 
never one whose history gave firmer proof of its 
having retained its original meaning. In the article 
to which I have referred. Professor Stuart says 
(p. 359), speaking of immersion, "I know of no one 
nsage of ancient times, which seems to me more 
clearly and certainly made out." He quotes Dr. 
Brenner, a learned Catholic (p, 361), acknowledging 
this, though contrary to the practice of his own 
church, and says, moreover, "the mode of baptism 
by immersion, the Oriental church has always con- 
tinued to preserve, even down to the present time. 
The members of this church are accustomed to call 
the members of the Western churches sprinkled 
Christians, by way of ridicule and contempt. They 
maintain that baptizo can mean nothing but immerge, 
and that baptism by sprinkling is as great a solecism 
as immersion by aspersion ; and they claim to them- 
selves the honor of having preserved the ancient, 

* Bib. Rep., Vol. Ill, p. 362. t Acts 10 : 47, 43. 16 : 32, 33. and 2 : 41. 



59 

sacred rite of the church, /ree/rom change and from 
corruption, which would destroy its significancy." 
Reader, consider this testimony of Professor Stuart, 
for which he refers to the best European authorities. 
The Oriental church charges the CathoUcs with 
having changed immersion into sprinkhng. The 
Catholics own the charge, and confess that the 
Oriental Christians have retained the ancient rite. 
Remember that these two classes of Christians are 
quite jealous of each other, because Orientalists will 
not bow to the authority of the pope ; yet, in, regard 
to the history of baptism, they both agree ! There 
is not a single point in the evidences of Christianity 
better sustained. He who denies this, with his eyes 
open to the extent of the evidence, would be ill pre- 
pared to defend the authenticity of the Scriptures 
against the attacks of infidelity. 

In reference to my remarks on the force of the 
word in question, we read (p. 108), ''Mr. Hague 
says, that baptizo must determine the meaning by 
its own force, or there is no clue to the author's 
meaning." My remark was, that we may cite many 
cases ^ in which the word, by its own force, must 
determine the meaning of the sentence; (see my 
pamphlet, p. 13, or Mr. Cooke's edition, p. 71 ;) and 
then, again (p. 14), ''I could fill pages with such 
citations^ if it were necessary or desirable, showing 
that if the word does not determine mode, there is no 
clue to the author's meaning." What was the object 
of these citations 7 It was to ascertain the real, 
native force of the term, in accordance with an 
observation of Tholuck, that it is one thing to give 
the true meaning of a word^ and another thing to give 
a meaning which it borrows from the context. How 
then shall we ascertain its own legitimate meaning, 
except by selecting cases where the word influences 
the context more than it is aifected by it ; where it 
is a principal term, and becomes the point on which 
the meaning of the sentence turns ? For instance, in 



60 

the case which I quoted from Josephus, wherein, 
speaking of Jonah, he says the seamen would not 
throw him overboard, until the ship was about to be 
baptized; if one supposed that baptize properly 
means to sprinkle, or wash, or apply water in any 
mode, he would be quite at a loss to translate the 
sentence. He might wonder whether the pagan 
sailors were about to perform some religious rite, by 
sprinkling, or ablution, and would not have a Jew 
on board. Yet, if he knew enough of the manners 
and customs of the men to see the improbability of 
this, he might be disposed to doubt the veracity of 
his author, or charge him with uttering an absurdity. 
If, however, from other sources, such as the inspired 
writings, he had known the facts of the case, he 
would at once perceive, as we do, that Josephus 
relies on the word baptize to denote the fact of the 
vessel's going under water. 

Sometimes we find writers, describing facts with 
which we are already familiar, giving certain acts a 
name ; and thus we learn the force of words. For 
instance, when Homer says (Od., I, 392), "As v/hen 
a smith dips or plunges (baptei) a hatchet or huge 
pole axe into water, viz., to harden them ;" here, we 
are taught the literal meaning of the word as clearly 
as it would be done to a child, if the action were 
performed before his eyes, and he were taught to 
call it dipping. Such instances often occur; and, 
thus becoming possessed of the literal meaning of 
the word, we quickly see what is involved in it by 
implication^ and learn all its applications in meta- 
phors, and other figures. Then, when we find such 
a phrase as this, the ship is baptized {pumEiui rj vavg)^ 
far from being left in doubt whether it means that 
the deck was sprinkled, or that the vessel went under 
water, we are led by the laws of language to take 
the simple, literal sense, and see at a glance that the 
vessel was submerged. Whether it occur in the 
^^ fragment of a sentence," or a " complete sentence," 



61 

the rule is the same; and unless there is some proof 
that the author is using the Avord in a figurative 
sense, or giving it some pecuhar signification, we are 
obhged to interpret it Uterally. This we will always 
find in the end to accord with the design of the 
writer ; and if, in any particular case, the meaning 
should happen to be doubtful, the rule stated for it 
by Ernesti is (p. 37), that we must '' regulate the 
interpretation of the more obscure passage by that 
which is more perspicuous." 

But in this Rejoinder (p. 108), it is said, the ivord 
itself does not forbid our translating the phrase, " the 
ship is washed with the waves, the ship is launched," 
&c. There are very few men in the world, able to 
read Greek, who would say that; and those few are 
men quite warm with zeal in pressing Greek litera- 
ture into the service of their church. Probably our 
authors would be joined in this remark by the Rev. 
Greville Ewing, whom they have quoted as author- 
ity/ j but touching whom. Professor Stuart says, '' that 
Dr. Ewing should gravely proffer to the public the 
word pop, as a translation of bap>tizo, might tempt to 
sarcasm a graver man than Mr. Carson." In sup- 
port of their assertion, however, our reviewers say, 
that ''lexicographers tell us that the word sometimes 
means simply (^ecpalog yivsa^ai) to be on the sea." 
This, as I have shown, is quite a mistake. What 
suggests it, is a remark of Scapula, made to illustrate 
one of his definitions. It is this : "A ship is, in a 
neuter sense, said to dip, to denote its condition on 
the sea." Such language is common, now. When 
a ship plunges heavily, she is said to dip. I remem- 
ber once to have heard a commercial gentleman, 
comparing two vessels with which he was acquaint- 
ed. " The one," he said, " went ovei^ the water, the 
other, through it." The one skimmed the waves 
like a duck, the other buried herself in them. A 
captain of a ship once told me, that being heavily 
laden, and having very bad w<^atherj he crossed the 
6 



62 

Atlantic with his vessel under water. Such is the 
import of the phrase to which Scapula refers; and J. 
think every reader will see, that the explanation 
contains internal evidence of iDeing true. But to say- 
that the word baptize means ''to be on the sea/' — 
why, it would be a solecism, — a strange, uncouth 
expression, which even a Dean Swift could not 
account for. 

To sustain their last remark about being on the 
sea, our reviewers turn for help to the case of Nebu- 
chadnezzar (Dan. 5: 21), " v/hose dwelling was 
with wild asses, and who was fed with grass like 
oxen." They quote from the Septuagint the phrase 
(to CTO)/m avTov e^acpi]^^ his body was baptized. They 
say, " Will Mr. Hague give us the precise meaning 
of the Greek verb here? " I answer, certainly. May 
I first, however, ask them a plainer question 7 Once, 
on a voyage to Nova Scotia, a long line of fog lay 
before us, so thick that Avhen the sun shone on it, it 
resembled somewhat a bank of snow. Into it our 
vessel plunged, and we could scarcely see her length. 
" Here we are," says one, " dipped in fog." " Yes," 
replies another, "thoroughly buried." Erelong vv^e 
emerged into sunlight again, and it seemed like the 
rolling up of a curtain from before us. Will the 
gentlemen please to tell us the meaning of the Eng- 
lish words " dipped " and "buried," in this instance? 
The use of them was most simple and natural. In 
a dense dew, like that which is common in the East, 
and to which, in the Scriptures, there is frequent' 
allusion, there may be as real an immersion, consid- 
ering that it completely surrounds and covers one, 
as if a man were standing on the bottom of a lake. 
The difference is, that in the latter case, immersion, 
if long continued, would be droicniiig; and in the 
former, the watery particles are so rare, as* to allow 
of breathing. For a king to be driven from his 
palace, to pass the night with the beasts of the field, 
amidst cold Eastern dews, would be near akin to 



63 

dying. His suffering from the dew which enveloped 
him, is several times spoken of; and he would 
doubtless use a strong expression to denote its sever- 
ity, but not droivning^ which my reviewers seem so 
constantly to associate with immersion. I reply, 
therefore, unhesitatingly, that the phrase quoted 
above, means, that after being driven from his pal- 
ace, where he had been surrounded with luxuries, 
the king's body was immersed in chilling dews. To 
him Milton's phrase would apply strongly, — 

" a cold shuddering dew 

Dips me all o'er." 

But then, our version renders the phrase in ques- 
tion, "his body was ivet with the dew of heaven." 
Our authors add, "or sprinkled." This last is gra- 
tuitous, and not the specific meaning of the sacred 
writer. If immersed in dew, he was of course wet ; 
but "sprinkling" is another thing. The first is 
involved by implication, and limited by the literal 
meaning of bapto ; the second is not in the word. 
This case admirably illustrates what I have said 
above, touching the limitation of those meanings 
which exist only by implication. The reviewers 
verify a statement which I made before, that if a 
foreigner were learning English, and would follow 
o\xi their pri?iciples of interpretation, he would say, 
that the word dijj^ in the above line from Milton, 
means to '■' sprinkle V If that meaning be given to 
the Greek w^ord, in the same way it must be given 
to the English ; and this, to such men as Johnson, 
Webster, and our mighty host of English lexicogra- 
phers, would have been a new and remarkable 
discovery. 

In closing their remarks on Principles of Philology, 
the authors state another principle, as being involved 
in what I have said. They present this more accu- 
rately than they did the first. Still, it needs a little 
modification, in order that it truly represent my 



64 

view. They say, " The principle of philology, then, 
involved in his assertion, is this, that words must 
determine their sense by their own force, or there is 
no ckie to the author's meaning." It should be 
rather expressed thus : The native force, the literal 
se?2se, of ic or (Is {iinhorr owed from the contexi)^ must 
he distinctly understood^ before there can be any cer- 
tainty of obtaining an author'' s meaning. This prin- 
ciple strikes at the root of their mode of interpreta- 
tion. They say, " let us bring this principle to the 
test. Take the English word bar^ Avhich means, a 
rail thrown across a passage, — an enclosure in a 
tavern, — any obstruction, — an enclosure in a court, 
— an association of lawyers, — a line in music, &c. • 
All these meanings attach to the word. Now read 
the following line, and say whether the word deter- 
mines the sense by its own force : 

' Must I new bars to my own joys create?' " 

Their position is, that there is no difficulty in getting 
at the author's meaning, and yet that the ybrce of the 
word does not show which of all these meanings to 
select ! What an extraordinary statement is this, — 
as it seems to me, directly in the face of self-evident 
truth. We admit that there is no difficulty in getting 
at the meaning; but it is because the mind sees 
instantly the true literal sense of the word bars^ 
which in this line borrows no new meaning from the 
context. The instance admirably suits my purpose; 
for though new senses may have been added to the 
word, and many more may be added in the course 
of centuries, yet the original, literal sense of the word 
has never been displaced. To this, therefore, the 
mind always recurs first, and, if the word is not 
changed by the context, always adheres to it. The 
literal sense is the light to guide us in all new appli- 
cations of the term. Without knowing this, we 
cannot get along. This always involves the idea of 
an obstruction. Johnson's first definition is, "a piece 



65 

of wood laid across a passage, to hinder entrance." 
2, a bolt, — 3, any obstacle. Having the literal sense, 
we need no dictionary to enable us to understand the 
figures which arise from it. These explain them- 
selves. 

Now suppose, that what our reviewers say has 
happened to the word baptism among the Greeks, 
had happened to the word bars among ourselves ; 
that is, that the original and literal meaning had 
been ^^ displaced^ ^ by another, and in that way ^'lost.''^ 
Well, which of the other meanings shall we take to 
fill the place of the original, the primary meaning, 
which is gone, dead and buried? Suppose, then, 
that the "enclosure in a tavern" comes to be first 
in order. The word bars suggests that idea, as its 
leading meaning. As the place referred to is one of 
hilarity, where men generally resort, to obtain what 
they consider the means of enjoyment, the first 
thought of a reader, in looking at the line before us, 
would be, that by "new bars" the author meant 
new aids to mirth^ and spoke of creating new means 
of enjoyment. This would be just the reverse of 
the real meaning, as we now understand it. Or 
suppose, in place of the old literal meaning, others 
which are mentioned, such as an enclosure in a 
court, or place of justice, or an association of lawyers, 
came to be enthroned. Then the first idea which 
the line before us would suggest, as the author's 
meaning, would be, must I new means of protection 
to my own joys create? Or take another case, and 
let a line in music come in place of the primary 
meaning; the reader then would at once conclude 
that the author meant to ask, whether he must add 
new acqtdsitions in music to the joys which he 
already possessed. Such would be the efiect of 
destroying the literal meaning, or keeping it out of 
sight. The word bars^ in the quoted line, by its own 
force^ determines the sense. How do we know, 
without any difiiculty, that it means obstacles? Sim- 
6* 



66 

ply because Ave know that the original, literal sense 
has never been lost. That has the precedence, and 
to violate the rule which I have quoted from Ernesti 
concerning it, is to turn order into confusion, and the 
beautiful classifications and arrangements of science, 
into an indiscriminate ruin. 
To show this, let us make an 

APPLICATION OF OUR ARGUMENT TO THE LORD's SUPPER. 

On the principles of philology advocated by our 
authors, how easy it would be to prove that our 
Lord enjoined no specific act in the Lord's supper, 
when he said of the bread, ''•Take, ea^." Suppose a 
man should say, that like the ancient shew-bread, it 
was designed to bq beheld by the people, and to be 
set on the table before the Lord, but not to be re- 
ceived into the mouth ; he could defend himself by 
as good an argument as that which sustains ''any use 
of water" as baptism. Like our authors, he might 
begin by descanting on the slight stress which the 
gospel lays on rites and forms. Having thus pre- 
pared the way to demand a good deal of latitude, he 
might proceed with a criticism on the meaning of 
the word eat, and say, "the question before us is, 
has this word a fixed and invariable meaning?" 
To this, he would answer in the negative, observing 
first, that words often change their meaning, and 
proceed, secondly, to show, by quotations, in what 
various senses the word is used, in all writings, both 
sacred and profane. Here he would get the lexicog- 
raphers on his side, with equal ease. In Webster's 
dictionary, the fourth meaning given, is, to enjoy; 
but evidently, there are difierent modes of enjoyment 
practicable, in this case. Enjoy is a generic term, 
and leaves us at liberty to do with the bread what 
we may deem convenient or instructive. We may 
enjoy it by touching it, or beholding it, or both, 
without receiving it into the mouth. Besides, this 
would be more in accordance with the liberal genius 



of the Christian dispensation, and also with the 
sacramental meaning of the rite. The rite itself 
signifies our reception of the atonement, and this is 
often expressed by looking or beholding. The lan- 
guage of the Scriptures is, ^^ Look unto me, and be 
ye saved;" and faith is explained as looking MXiXo 
Christ, as the Israelites looked for healing to the 
brazen serpent set upon a pole. Then, again, as a 
seventh sense, Webster states believing to be the 
Scripture meaning of the word eat. From all this, 
it must be evident, that this term "has not a fixed 
and invariable meaning," — that it is used in numer- 
ous senses, — that enjoying the bread in any mode 
answers the end of the precept, — that merely behold- 
ing agrees with its spiritual signification, — that this 
bears an analogy to the manner in which the shew- 
bread was used in divine worship of old, — that the 
process of eating by receiving food into the mouth is 
less in keeping with the " purely spiritual character" 
of our religion, and less adapted to the sick chamber, 
where a person may be too weak to obey such a 
command with composure and profit. He who 
insists that the bread must be chewed and swal- 
lowed, makes it a carnal ordinance ; and he must 
prove that the word eat means this, and nothing 
ELSE, which cannot be done. So, following in the 
track of our authors, and enlarging on every point, 
with ample proofs and citations, v/e could make it 
as plain that the enacting terms, in the command to 
celebrate the supper, enjoin no specific act, as they 
have, that the baptismal law enjoins no s'pecifi.c use 
of water. The principles of reasoning are precisely 
the same, and accomplish as much in one case as 
they do in the other; and he who cannot see their 
fallacy, as our authors have urged them, would be 
prepared, if circumstances were favorable, to follow 
his teachers in sweeping away the Lord's supper out 
of the church, as they fain would the primitive 
baptism. History justifies me in saying, that this 



68 

last expression is no mere assertion, made for the 
occasion; for Romish writers have used this same 
sort of reasoning, to draw from Christ's words at the 
table a sanction for turning the supper into an offer- 
ing unto God, and presenting the elements as a 
sacrifice, by the hands of a priest. Dr. Brett takes 
the \Qxh poio {noio))^ which oar Saviour used in the 
command, ^^ i)o this in remembrance of me," — 
a verb used in a great many applications, — and 
shows, from the Greek classics, and various texts in 
the Greek version of the Old Testament (from which 
the evangelists usually quoted), that poio has the 
sense of offering, — presenting an oblation to God. He 
says that Dr. Hicks, in his book on the Christian 
priesthood (p. 58), exhibits this in a very satisfactory 
manner. He quotes Herodotus (lib. I, c. 132), say- 
ing, " without one of the magi, it is not lawful for 
theui Tiotsiadui, — to oifer a sacrifice." So, Ex. 29: 36, 
Thou shalt offer {jioiriueig) a bullock. So also, in 
vs. 38, 39, Lev. 4: 20, and other places, " the word 
is used for offering a sacrifice." Now, how shall we 
treat the argument of these doctors ? I would treat 
it precisely as I have that of Messrs. Cooke and 
Towne. I would lay down such plain principles as 
I have quoted from Ernesti, on which we are obliged 
to act, in interpreting the language of every-day life; 
I would show the folly of departing from them, and 
call upon the Romish writers to abjure the maxims 
of common sense, by which they expect other people 
to interpret their words, when they wish to be 
understood, or else to abjure their false interpreta- 
tions. But how would Messrs. Cooke and Towne 
treat these writers in an argument? Ay, "there's 
the rub." I doubt not, however, they would come 
to the same philological grounds which I now occu- 
py, but in the meanwhile, would wish to lay these 
"Hints to an Inquirer" on the shelf But what if 
the doctors should find it, take it down, sift it tho- 
roughly, and use the authors' principles against 



69 

themselves 1 That would be '' turning the tables " 
mightily, and I only hope that if our friends ever 
get into such a controversy, their antagonists will 
not be reminded of " the Hints," or of this Rejoinder. 
Convinced as I am that the practice of sprinkling 
was introduced by the Latin church, kiioioing as I 
do that her learned historians and teachers aver that 
she did it by authority committed unto her, and not 
on the ground of scriptural precept or precedent, 
asserted as this is by all the Oriental church, who 
retain immersion, conceded as it is by the most intel- 
ligent Protestants of Western Europe, it certainly is 
no mere assumption, to say that sprinkling as a 
mode of baptism is a relic of Popery. The earliest 
of the Reformers knew it, for Luther wished to 

RESTORE IMMERSION, BUT FAILED. I Spcak this with 

emphasis, because T have shown, that it is not I who 
say this, but that it is uttered by the best possible 
authorities. If so, this is the weak point of Protest- 
antism. It is a token of remembrance which she 
has accepted from Popery. And in a close contest 
with the Papists, it becomes a rock on which the 
Protestant must fall and be broken. The signs of 
the times indicate that this momentous controversy 
will wax warm in this country ; and if the younger 
clergy are not driven to occupy the firm ground of 
the Baptists, one of two things will follow. Either 
they will embrace Puseyism (as many are now do- 
ing), which is essentially Romanism, setting church- 
authority above the Bible, or else will embrace 
Rationalism, the opposite extreme, which sets reason 
above the Bible, and proclaims an utter indifference 
to all rites and ordinances. Here the Baptists stand 
on solid rock. They do not, in any point, admit the 
supremacy of the church, or the supremacy of un- 
aided reason, but of the " Bible alone." They 
accept no rites except what are commanded, and 
they administer these in exact conformity with the 
enacting terms, "immerse — eat — drink." They 



70 

have in ages past resisted unto death the least addi- 
tion, when made by law, as binding on the con- 
science; and on the other hand, they refuse to admit 
the least dimi?i2ition. Church-authority has added, 
and Rationalism has diminished, but they say with 
the Prophet of God, "thy law- is the truth." Re- 
move the sanctions of divine command, and they 
care nothing for the ordinances themselves. They 
would not accept them from church authority on the 
ground of venerableness, nor from Rationalism on 
the ground of fitness, and whether civil government 
be the organ of the one or the other, they will not 
accept them from it as things of expediency. But 
when an observance bears the seal of Heaven, they 
place obedience among the moral duties, as springing 
from that love, -which the spiritual and eternal law' 
enjoins. " Here is firm footing — all is sea besides." 
Hence, as 1 see the elements gathering for a keen 
moral trial of every church and every system, I feel 
truly sorry for that Protestant ministry, which pro- 
claims thft Bible as the only rule of faith, and yet 
feels obliged to defend the practice which is the 
chief memorial of a power that early arose within 
the church itself, rivalling the authority of Christ, 
assuming his prerogatives, wresting the sceptre from 
his hand, and changing the times^ seasons^ and laws 
of his sovereign appointment. 

Having now examined the most prominent and 
important parts of the Rejoinder, I proceed, 

HI. To review the other sections in the order of 
their occurrence. 

THE INTRODUCTION 

is chiefly occupied in defending the refusal of the 
writers to designate the Baptists by their accustomed 
name. I did not regard this as a matter of any im- 
portance, except as the indication of a hostile feeling, 
quite uncongenial with the nature of that charity 
which does much to " clear the mental eye," and to 



71 

sweeten the tones of controversy. It is in vain to 
say, that the word '' Immersers," used instead of the 
common appellation Baptists, does not '^ of its own 
force carry contempt with "it." The same might be 
said of the term " sprinklers," if applied to Congre- 
gationalists, as it exactly designates their practice; 
but would they not regard it as an uncourteous thing 
in us to substitute this in common speech for the 
name which they have chosen ? Undoubtedly, ordi- 
nary feelings of propriety would forbid it, and on 
the ground of courtesy, we follow usage in denomi- 
nating them Vedobaptists, although we do not be- 
lieve that such a name properly belongs to them. A 
pedagogue is a teacher of youth, and a Pedobaptist 
is a baptizer of youth. Many youth who are capa- 
ble of faith and conversion, are baptized among our- 
selves, but, in our view, the sprinkling of infants is 
notl?edobaptis7n. The Greeks would call it brepho- 
randsm. Strictly speaking, we are Pedobaptists our- 
selves, as is often most touchingly shown, when we 
publicly dedicate to Christ those interesting youth 
who give evidence of having been born again, and 
ask for baptism from a sense of love and duty. 
Nevertheless, as the application of names is not the 
turning point of this discussion, we choose in this, to 
follow prevailing custom, and to make no unneces- 
sary change. 

What good can the authors before us expect to 
gain by the course they are pursuing in the change 
of denominational names ? To convince us of our 
error ? Impossible ; they know that a want of cour- 
tesy does not tend to conviction. To excite amongst 
their own churches sectarian antipathies against us ? 
This they may do ; it is the effect most likely to fol- 
low; but whether in the end that would prove to be 
a real good may admit of a doubt. Over such a 
result the more candid and pioys amongst them- 
selves would be the chief mourners. But where 
piety has only a feeble influence, a common manli- 



72 

ness of character should suffice to guide one in the 
selection of appellatives for large bodies of men. 
Even to Unitarians, who differ from us in a more 
important point than is involved in this question, we 
yield the name they choose for themselves, although 
it implies that we do not hold the true docti'ine of 
the divine unity. But in addressing them, we reason 
about the doctrine itself, not the merits of the name. 
When the word Congregation a] ist was assumed as 
the designation of a sect, it implied that Episco- 
palians and Presbyterians had not just notions of 
church government, yet the name was generally 
conceded. Nothing but a spirit of bigotry could in- 
duce an opposite course, and we should ever obey 
the precept, "in malice be ye children, but in under- 
standing be men." 

In their defence, the writers say of the Baptists, 
" so strong indeed has been their preference for im- 
merse as a substitute for baptize, that they have 
found it needful to rend the Bible Society, and to 
procure a new translation of the inspired volume, 
for the single purpose of introducing their favorite 
word." It becomes me to admit, that, from their 
connection with an editor's office, my Reviewers 
have more means of learning the news of the day 
than I possess; but if this last statement about a 
new English translation be a fact, I am quite unfor- 
tunate in never having heard of it from any other 
source than this Rejoinder. Although extensively- 
acquainted in my denomination, I have never heard 
of a council or convention of any kind being called 
to deliberate on such a project. The Rejoinder 
speaj<:s of the " appearance of this new Bible in our 
city." Here I plead ignorance. If any such book 
is in Boston, I can only say, I have not yet had the 
advantage of reading or seeing a copy. Moreover, 
if it be here, it is a book formed by individuals with- 
out any concurrence of the denomination as such; 
and whoever the translators may be, they have 



73 

doubtless as good a right to publish their version, as 
Doddridge, Campbell, Macknight, or Professor Stuart 
had to pubhsh theirs. In a free country, there can 
be no limitation of such works, except the want of 
readers and purchasers. 

. The reason why a large number of Baptists 
seceded from the American Bible Society, and formed 
a new association in New York, called the American 
and Foreign Bible Society, was the decree of the 
Board of Managers of the former institution, direct- 
ing all missionary translators who should receive 
their patronage, to make the English version their 
standard, so that all denominations of evangelical 
Christians who use the English version, might be 
satisfied with the translation. The American Bap- 
tist Board of Foreign Missions had long before di- 
rected their missionaries to have no standard except 
the inspired original^ and to transfer into Pagan lan- 
guages no Greek or Hebrew words, which would 
admit of being plainly translated. In the formation 
of the English version, king James commanded " the 
old ecclesiastical words to be kept." In the forma- 
tion of new versions for heathen millions, the Bap- 
tists said, "let the translator be competent, and let 
not his conscience be fettered." This difference 
caused the difficulty, and the Baptists took their 
position in the spirit of Christian love, declaring that 
the whole world ought to have the Bible '' unmuti- 
lated and undisguised." 

Although in the English version, important im- 
provements might be suggested, yet since it has 
become venerable by age, identified with our na- 
tional literature, and especially, since in this land 
we enjoy abundant aids to lead us to a knowledge 
of its meaning, the Baptists at large would doubtless 
prefer to let it stand as it is, than to lack the benefit 
of a national Bible, a book of common reference in 
every sanctuary and every family. But is this any 
reason why we should carry- its imperfections into 
7 



74 

those new versions made for millions who have 
never seen the Scriptures ? And as to the Greek 
word haptizo^ is it not a fact that the greater part of 
the Christians of Asia and of Africa, and nearly half 
of the Protestant Christians in Europe, have always 
used versions in which it is translated by a word 
signifying immerse ? Is it not so rendered in the 
Arabic, Ethiopic, Egyptian and Armenian versions, 
in the old Gothic of the 4th centurj^ and in the Ger- 
man, Danish, Swedish, and Dutch Bibles of modern 
times 7 It is acknowledged without controversy. 
With such a powerful array of precedents, why 
should the Baptists be blamed for not being willing 
to make their new translations conform to the Eng- 
lish standard, while the Catholics are not exempt 
from censure for pronouncing the Latin Yulgate in- 
fallible ? 

After their introduction, the gentlemen proceed to 
speak of the "important matters in tbeir book which 
I have left untouched." I proceed, therefore, to no- 
tice what they say on 

ARGUMENTS OMITTED L\ THE FORMER REPLY. 

They say, " the reader will please to notice that the 
points of our argument which Mr. Hague has omit- 
ted, are such, that if they are conceded, the question 
is settled against immersion. These points are, first, 
our whole argument drawn from the signification of 
the rite. This argument we consider of itself deci- 
sive of the whole question ; and notwithstanding 
what may be said on other points, while this argu- 
ment remains unscathed, we hold our ground firmly 
against immersion." 

The only reason of my devoting so large a pro- 
portion of my Review to a discussion of the meaning 
of the word baptize^ was the obvious fact, that on 
that meaning the argument turns. If that word 
means what my Reviewers sa3'- it does, the question 
is settled, there is no law for immersion, and I need 



no further reasoning to lead me to practise sprink- 
ling. If the word has the meaning which I attribute 
to it, there can be no sound argument for sprinl^ling. 
If I am correct in philology, the question is virtually- 
decided. This, I think, must be evident to my Re- 
viewers. They had commenced the discussion by a 
chapter on " the meaning of the word," saying, " the 
argument for immersion \s foimded upon the assump- 
tion that the words baptism, and immersion, carry 
the same idea." On page 10, they say, "what is the 
conclusion'? Necessarily, that these words (bapto 
and baptizo) have not a fixed and invariable mean- 
ing — that they do not of themselves determine any 
one particular way of applying a liquid." In con- 
nection with this, they had referred to the testimony 
of the Greeks (page 17), declaring that they do not 
always practise immersion, and are " against the 
principle that immersion is essential to baptism." 
In opening my Review, 1 commended the author for 
"coming to the point" "because he takes a clear 
and decided position, and risks his whole cause upon 
a single issue." There were the best of reasons, then, 
for my laying the chief stress on that point. But in 
the first notice of my Review, which a friend pointed 
out to me in the Puritan, it was said, " this contro- 
versy does not^ as Mr. Hague observes, tuim upon the 
meaning of the tvord, but upon the signification of 
the rite." This looked as if the gentlemen were not 
willing fully to trust their own arguments on the 
meaning" of the word. If those arguments had been 
sound, they would have been decisive. There would 
have been no need of shifting their position from 
them to any other ground. But they are not willing 
to rest their cause on them. Well, let us take them 
at their word. They consider their argument " from 
the signification of the rite, decisive of the Avhole 
question." I will show that this argument is invalid, 
that it amounts to nothing, and that they are forced 
back to rest, after all, on the tneaning of the word. 



76 

As the authors deem this matter so important, let 
us look closely at their own statement of their posi- 
tion. The3^ say on page 21, '' Our object is here to 
show, in brief, the close connection between the 
baptism of the Spirit, and baptism with water, and 
that the one is a symbol of the other. Now if bap- 
tism by water is an emblem of baptism by the Spirit, 
we have only to look into the Bible, and see in what 
way we are brought into contact with the influences 
of the Spirit. If we are currently represented as 
being put into the Spirit, or plunged into the Spirit, 
we concede the whole matter in question ; and if, on 
the other hand, the Spirit is currently said to be 
poured out upon us, or sprinkled upon us, then you 
must concede that pouring or sprinkling is the more 
significant way." Having quoted several passages 
of Scripture, on page 22, they proceed to say, ''We 
have thus given a i^w specimens, to show that the 
Holy Ghost is said 'to fall' upon men, to be 'poured 
out' upon them. And it is in reference to this 
subject, that God promises ' to sprinkle clean water 
upon us,' and that his grace shall ' come down as 
rain upon the mown grass and as showers which 
water the earth.' It is of no consequence, however, 
as to the point before us, whether these things are 
said in connection with baptism or not. They are 
brought simply to show in what manner the Scrip- 
tures speak of the communication of the Spirit's 
influences. Now, then, if the thing signified is uni- 
formly represented as sprinkled or poured out upon 
the subject, that which signifies it may be pouring 
or sprinkling." 

Now it need not take a much longer time to dis- 
play the weakness of all this, than to state the argu- 
ment itself. Nevertheless, I will pay it due respect, 
by giving it ample space. 

(1.) The argument assumes what is not true. 

(2.) Besides this assumption, the principle of the 
argument is fallacious. 



77 

I. The argument assumes, that the Spirit "is 
wiiformly represented as sprinkled or poured out, 
upon the subject;" and as it is said, in order to as- 
certain the mode of baptism, " we have only to look 
into the Bible, and see in luhat ivay ice are brought 
into contact ivith the influences of the Spirit, let us 
follow out this plan. If we are now on the right 
roadj let us see where it will lead us. 

1. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, 12: 13, 
Paul says to the church, For by one Spirit are we 
all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have 
been all made to d?^ink into one Spirit. Here we see 
that the way in which ''we are brought into contact 
with the influences of the Spirit" is by drinking. 
This expression is in exact accordance with the 
words of our Lord, John 7 : 37 — 39 ; "If any man 
thirst, let him come unto me and drink. This 
spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on 
him should receive." See also John 4 : 13 — 14. If, 
therefore, the candidate, receiving from the minister 
a glass of water, should drink it, that would be bap- 
tism. As the word baptize itself does not deiennine 
mode, we are as much at liberty to select this as any 
other. As it suits the signification oi baptism so 
well, as it is mentioned by Paul in the above verse, 
in connection with the word baptize, it could not be 
objected to as unscriptural, and perhaps by many 
would be regarded as an agreeable improvement on 
all the modes at present practised. As it is common 
even now for Pedobaptists to leave the choice of 
mode to the subject, if any one should think of taking 
a cup of water as baptism, the principle here proposed 
would certainly warrant his doing so. In this case, 
we must give up the idea, that religious baptism is to 
be performed but once, and only with water ; we are 
baptized with wine every time we receive the eucha- 
rist. But if a baptism of ivater is to be received but 
once, then to drink of a cup of water is, on this prin- 
7# 



78 

ciple of interpretation, perfectly allowable. I appeal 
now to the good sense of every reader of the Scrip- 
tures — Is drinking baptism ? If it is, may it not be 
practised when preferred ? If it is not, Avhat shall 
be thought of the principle of interpretation which 
sanctions it? 

2. In the gospel of John (20: 22), when the risen 
Saviour appeared among his disciples, " he breathed 
on them and saith unto them. Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost." Here, the bringing of the disciples "into 
contact with the influences of the Spirit," is repre- 
sented by BREATHING. A similar expression is found 
in Ezekiel 37 : 9, '' Thus saith the Lord God ; 
Come from the four winds, O breath ; and breathe 
upon these slain that they may live." This repre- 
sentation has doubtless much of beauty in it, for as 
God breathed into our first parent the breath of 
natural life, so he breathes into his new moral crea- 
tion the breath of spiritual life. When the Catholic 
church deemed herself at liberty to choose various 
modes of baptism, breathing on the subject was con- 
nected v/ith the ordinance as an appropriate emblem. 
If the mode of baptism is now to be ascertained by 
only looking into the Bible, to " see in what way we 
are brought into contact with the influences of the 
Spirit," then we see presented to us here a mode re- 
markable for its simpHcity and convenience, adapted 
to all times, to all places and conditions, as well to 
the wayside, the desert, and the sick chamber, as to 
the river, the pool, or the sanctuary. It can be prac- 
tised at once, in all circumstances wherein men can 
draw the breath of life. Nothing could be more 
significant of the influences of the Spirit. It agrees 
exactly with the word commonly used by the church 
in her prayers and songs in relation to it. 

" Inspire our souls with life divine." 

If we are at liberty to select modes of baptism, the 
most numerous arguments drawn from expediency 



79 

may be urged in behalf of this. To speak in the 
style of our authors, the inesum'ptwe evidence is 
strongly in its favor. It is true, the apostles were 
not so much struck with its ease and convenience as 
to be inclined to adopt it, — Philip and the Eunuch 
waited till " on their way they came to a certain 
water," but then the principle of interpretation now 
in view allows it. Again I appeal to the conscience 
and judgment of the reader, while I ask, is breathing 
baptism ? If it is, why should it not be practised ? 
If it is not, what must be thought of the principle 
which establishes it as a scriptural mode ? 

3. The Holy Spirit is represented as ''a mighty 
wind," and the fact of the disciples being " brought 
into contact with the influences of the Spirit," is 
represented by ''blowing;" for it is said (in Acts 2 : 
2, 4), when the disciples were together, " suddenly 
there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing, 
mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting — and they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost." There may be said to be an obvious agree- 
ment between this description and that saying of 
Christ touching the Spirit's influence, " the wind 
bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound 
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and 
whither it goeth ; so is every one that is born of the 
Spii^it.^^ In accordance with this figure is that aspi- 
ration in Canticles 4: 16, "Awake, O north wind, 
and come thou south, bloiv upon my garden, that 
the spices thereof may flow out." Thus, too, a 
Christian poet prays, 

" sweet Spirit come, 

Celestial breeze, no longer stay." 

As ''contact with the Spirit's influences" is repre- 
sented by bloiving, it follows, according to the prin- 
ciple in question, that blowing is baptism. If, there- 
fore, a candidate were placed by the minister, where 
a current of strong wind could rush upon him, that 



80 

would be baptizing him in a way as truly significant 
of the coming of the Spirit, as any other suggested 
in the Bible. The baptismal law contained in the 
commission does not expressly mention water as the 
element; and as the word baptizo itself " determines 
nothing as to mode," but leaves us to infer the man- 
ner of baptism from the emblems of the Spirit's in- 
fluence, then to place one in the way of receiving 
the force of '' a rushing, mighty wind," would be to 
baptize him according to a scriptural precedent. I 
appeal again to the good sense of the reader, can the 
bloiving of wind confer Christian baptism ? With 
your eye on Christ's baptism and on apostolic prac- 
tice, you answer. No, it cannot be. What then must 
be thought of the argument which involves such an 
idea? 

4. Another way in which the Scriptures represent 
our being '' brought into contact with the influence 
of the Spirit " is by anointing. Under the old econ- 
omy, the unction or application of oil to the person, 
as a sign of consecration or purifying, was highly 
esteemed. Hence arose the frequent and happy 
allusions to anointing, as a symbol of the graces of 
the Holy Spirit. In the 61st of Isaiah, the prophet 
cries, " the Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, be- 
cause the Lord hath anointed me to preach good 
tidings unto the meek." Using the same figure, 
Paul says (2 Cor. 2 : 21, 22), " Now he which es- 
tablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed 
us, is God, who hath also sealed us and given us the 
earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. Another apostle 
says to Christians at large (1 John 2:20), "Ye 
have an unction from the Holy One^ and ye know 
all things." Anointing, having been of old a sign of 
purifying, is thus alluded to as expressive of the 
soul's contact with the Spirit's purifying influences. 
These are the true '• oil of gladness." Correspond- 
ing to this, is the expression, familiar to every reader 
of the Scriptures, I will jmi my Spirit upon them. 



81 

In Numbers 11 : 17, it is said, for instance, ''I will 
ij take of the Spirit that is upon thee and 'put it upon 
'! them." Now when anointing was an appointed 
i sign of purifying, the manner of applying it to the 
j person was not left indeterminate. In all the annals 
' of the world was there never such a thing heard of, 
as a legislator leaving a people to infer the proper 
sign^ from his expressing what he wished to be 
signified. In the commands of God, perspicuity is a 
; distinguishing feature. In Leviticus 14: 26, &c., it 
was said, " The priest shall pour of the oil into the 
palm of his own left hand ; and the priest shall 
sprinkle with his right finger some of the oil that is 
in his left hand seven times before the Lord. And 
the priest shall put of the oil that is in his hand 
upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be 
cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and 
upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the place 
of the blood of the trespass offering. And the rest of 
the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall put upon 
the head of him that is to be cleansed, to make an 
atonement for him before the Lord." Behold what 
clearness ! Every essential act is specified. This is 
the fitting style for legislation. The Jewish priest 
was not left in doubt about the manner of applying 
the holy unction. He was not told that the rite sig- 
nified purifying, and that he might select any mode 
which he, or the subject, pleased. But if this sort of 
indefiniteness appears in the legislation of Christ, 
and we are left to infer the mode of baptism from 
the figures which exhibit the communication of the 
Spirit's influences, then we see that another way in 
which "we are brought into contact" with those 
influences is by anointing. The Romish church has 
]ong connected unction with baptism ; but I ask the 
Protestant, who has the Bible in his hands, is anoint- 
ing baptism? You unhesitatingly answer, in view 
of the conduct of the apostles. No ; they knew of no 
such ordinance, neither the churches of God, " nei^ 



82 

ther came it into their mind." What, then, shall 
be thought of the argument that would give to an 
unauthorized Romish rite, as being so significant^ 
the sanction of Christ? 

We begin to see, now, how much was taken for 
granted, in that stately assumption which we find 
on the twenty-second page of our authors' " Hints :" 
" Now, then, if the thing signified is uniformly rep- 
resented as being sprinkled or poured out upon the 
-subject," &c. Ay, — if ii is ; but, on the other hand, 
if it is not, the whole argument from the signification 
of the rite is destroyed. The condition of the writer 
would then resemble that of a celebrated geologist, 
who, having put forth a theory, based on the facts 
observed in a certain section of the country, won 
some favor to his opinions, at the first; but when it 
was found out, by subsequent observers, that the 
facts loere not there^ the case was materially changed. 
The beautiful theory passed away, like "the base- 
less fabric of a vision." 

We proceed to observe, 

5th. That another way in which the Scriptures 
represent our being " brought into contact with the 
influences of the Spirit," is by the emission of sound^ 
or PUTTING FORTH THE VOICE. When the prophet Eli- 
jah stood in the mount, it is said (1 Kings 19), th^ 
Lord passed by, and was manifest, not in the wind, 
nor the earthquake, nor the fire, but in the stilly small 
voice. " When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in 
his mantle." Here, the Spirit is represented, not as 
water, fire, or air, but as an invisible, yet a living and 
audible agent. Hence, David says, " The Spirit of 
the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my 
tongue." 2 Sam. 23 : 2. The apostle John repeat- 
edly says, •' He that hath an ear to hear, let him 
hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." If, 
now, it be true, that the figures which represent the 
mode of "contact with the Spirit's influences," point 
out the mode of baptism, then, speaking to the ear, 



83 

uttering with the voice, is baptism. If so, the bap- 
tismal formulary pronounced over a candidate would 
suffice, without any other action. This mode would 
be peculiarly adapted to all climates and conditions, 
on account of its ease and convenience. Somewhat 
in the vein of our authors, it might be added, the 
design of baptism is to express purification, without 
reference to mode ; but the words of the Spirit are 
said to have a purifying influence,^ and, of course, 
to pronounce them in solemn form over a candidate, 
would be significant of purification. If so, it would 
answer the end of baptism. If my reader should see 
any thing absurd about this, let him consider to 
whom it appertains. On page twenty-second, our 
authors say, after having quoted a number of passa- 
ges, in which sprinkling and pouring are mentioned, 
''It is of no consequence, however, as to the point 
before us, whether these things are saidm connection 
with baptism or not. They are brought simply to 
show in what manner the Scriptures speak of the 
communication of the Spirit's influences."' Well, 
sprinkling and pouring, it is said, are called baptism, 
because they represent the communication of the 
Spirit's influences. But "putting forth the voice" 
represents the communication of the Spirit's influ- 
ences. Of course, then, putting forth the voice is 
baptism. The principle of our authors' argument 
leads to such a conclusion. If the conclusion be 
absurd, the principle must be false. 

6. Another mode in which the Scriptures represent 
the Spirit as communicating his influences, is by 
"shining forth as the light." This is strikingly 
expressed by Paul, 2 Cor. 4:6; "God, who com- 
manded the light to shine out of darkness, hath 
shined into our hearts." To the Ephesians, he says, 
"I do not cease to make mention of you in my 
prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ would 
give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in 

* John 15: 3. Ps^ 119 : 9. 



84 

the knowledge of him, the eyes of your understand- 
ing being enhghtened." Christ promised the Spirit, 
as the Spirit of conviction or illumination. (John 
16 : 8, &c.) He reveals, teaches, enlightens, quick- 
ens, sanctifies, and is called the Spirit of wisdom, 
miderstanding and knowledge, of all of which, light 
is a common symbol. In these aspects his abun- 
dant influences were the theme of prophets, who 
rejoiced to think of his " going forth being prepared 
as the morning," and of his filling the world with 
the knowledge of the truth. In the passage first 
quoted, Paul represents his going forth over the new 
creation, to be as at the beginning, when light broke 
forth from darkness. This emblem of the Spirit's 
coming is difierent from all the rest; and it really 
seems as if all the grand objects of creation were laid 
under contribution to illustrate the variety and 
extent of his influence. How, then, can it be said, 
that those influences are uniformly represented by 
sprinkling and pouring? ^}\q facts are assumed. 

7. But, then, the gentlemen say (p. 21), "If we 
are currently represented as being put into the Spirit, 
or plunged into the Spirit, we concede the whole 
matter in question." In the Rejoinder (p. SS), they 
admit that those instances which I have adduced, 
prove "that the word baptize, in those cases, means 
to immerse. That it often means to immerse," they 
say, they "have never disputed." Well, let us look 
at the bearings of these remarks. It is granted, that 
in the cases which I quote, the word must have a 
determinate meaning, — immersion. It is granted 
that the word has this meaning often. But, then, it 
is evident that the meaning of a word which is clear 
and undisputed, which in specific instances it must 
have, and which occurs, not rarely, but often, is the 
current meaning of the word. An obvious, undis- 
puted, necessary and frequent meaning, is the "cur- 
rent " meaning, — not one which may occur, which 
is doubtful and disputed. It follows, therefore, that 



85 

in those cases where men are simply said to receive 
a BAPTISM of the Spirit, they "are currently repre- 
sented as being put into or immersed into the Spirit." 
The more closely the reader looks at this, the more 
clearly will he see, that the whole matter in question 
is virtually conceded, however unwittingly it may 
have been done. 

But not on this ground, alone, will I claim the 
concession. Apart from the current meaning of bap- 
tizo, the language of Scripture touching the influ- 
ences of the Spirit is often in exact accordance with 
this representation. When the apostle John speaks 
of his own state in relation to the Spirit, while in the 
isle of Patmos, does he say that the Spirit was upon, 
him, or in him? No, he says, " I was in the Spirit 
on the Lord's day." Rev. 1 : 10. So, also, when 
he saw a door opened in heaven, he says (Rev. 4:2), 
"Immediately 1 was in the Spirit." He speaks also 
of "being carried away in the Spirit" into the wil- 
derness, and to a high mountain (Rev. 17: 3. 21: 10) ; 
just as Ezekiel was, when, as he said, " the Spirit 
took me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a 
great rushing ;" "so the Spirit Ufted me up and took 
me away." Ezek. 7: 12, 14. 11: 24. As we are 
said, in a natural sense, to live and move in God 
(Acts 17: 28), who is above, beneath and around us 
as an all-pervading presence, so, in a spiritual sense, 
when we pass from death unto life, we are said to 
move in a new element, to "live in the Spirit," and 
to " walk in the Spirit." When the Spirit of life 
from God enters into us, to dwell in us, we are as 
those who enjoy the light and air of a new creation. 
So, John says (1 Epis. 4: 16), "He that dwelleth in 
love dwelleth IN God, and God in him;" and Paul 
says (Rom. 8: 9), "Ye are not in the flesh, but in 
the Spirit^ if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in 
you." To the Galatians, he says (5 : 16, 17), "Walk 
in the Spirit;" "if we live in the Spirit^ let us also 
walk in the Spirit.^' As the mind of a man intox- 



86 

icated is figuratively said to be steeped or immersed 
in wine, so Paul expresses the proper extent of our 
subjection to the influences of the Spirit, when he 
says (Ephes. 5: 18), ''Be not drunk with wine, 
wherein is excess, but he filled with the Spirit." So 
far is it from being true, that the Spirit is uniformly- 
represented as being sprinkled or poured upon us, 
that even in one of the graces of the Spirit, we are 
commanded to be enveloped; for it is said, "be 
clothed with humility.*' When, on the mount of 
transfiguration, Peter, James and John " entered 
into" that bright cloud of glory which came and 
overshadowed them (Luke 9: 35), no doubt they 
were baptized in the cloud, — surrounded and covered 
with it; and certainly, if the influences of the Spirit 
may be represented as "a river of water of life," as 
the air of heaven, as a celestial breeze, as a " mighty 
wind filling the whole house," as " floods upon the 
dry ground," as pools filled with rain, as "a cloud 
of dew in the heat of harvest," how accordant it 
must be with the genius and style of the Scriptures, 
to speak of an immersion into the influences of the 
Spirit ! 

How wonderful it is, that those who profess to 
believe in the Spirit, as a divine and pervading pres- 
ence, should find any difliculty with such expres- 
sions, — should seem not to understand them, or to 
feel their force. When David thought of God as the 
light and life of the natural creation, he cried, 
^' Whither shall I go from thy presence, or whither 
shall I flee from thy Spirit?" But when men are 
converted, pass from the kingdom of Satan into that 
of Christ, "from darkness* to light," from their nat- 
ural state into a new moral creation, they are said to 
"put on the new man,"" to be "new creatures," and 
are justly regarded as being surrounded with, and 
enveloped in heavenly influences. Yet, so narrow 
are our authors' views of this subject, that they say 
(pp. 138, 139), " Indeed, to employ it (immersion) 



87 

111 representing the effects of the Holy Spirit's opera- 
tions upon the human soul, seems to be a monstrous 
perversion of language. Those effects are purity, 
joy, peace, &c. Now, it is very common to speak 
of being immersed in care and trouble, of being 
immersed in debt, of being immersed in sloth, &c. 
The term is frequently used to denote something 
disagreeable and 02:)pressive. But who ever thinks 
of describing that which is pleasant and joyous by 
such a term? Immersed in purity — immersed in joy 
— immersed in peace — immersed in humility — it is 
barbarous phraseology !" And yet, how often do the 
lips of those who sing the songs of Zion utter similar 
expressions ! Have our authors forgotten Watts's 
hymns ? Let them turn to the 65th hymn, book 2d. 

*' There shall I bathe my weary soul. 
In seas of heavenly rest; 
And not a wave of trouble roll 
Across my peaceful breast." 

Many of their readers must have sung that verse, 
without thinking of any thing "disagreeable and 
oppressive." Could these critics really wish that 
the poet had altered his phrase, and sung of a mere 
sprinkling of heavenly rest 7 Then, again, have 
they forgotten Cowper's hymn, touching the "foun- 
tain filled with blood," in which he says, 

"And sinners, plunged beneath that flood. 
Lose all their guilty stains ?" 

If their taste regards this as "barbarous phraseol- 
ogy," they may well inquire whether the songs of 
heaven would not need equal improvement: for 
therein the redeemed are described as those who 
have "come out of great tribulation, and washed 
their robes, and made them white, i?t the blood of the 
Lamb.^^ 

From what we have said on this point, which is 
regarded as "decisive of the whole question," it is 
abundantly evident that our -authors have mistaken 



the facts of the case, — those facts which are the basis 
of their reasoning. Their views are too Umited. 
Their conckision is founded on the assumption, that 
in "the communication of the Spirit's influences," 
they are " uniformly represented as sprinkled or 
poured out upon the subject." (p. 22.) This as- 
sumption, we have seen, is baseless. The Scriptures 
contradict it. The simple statement of the fact is, 
that all the realms of nature are laid under contribu- 
tion, to furnish emblems to illustrate the influence of 
the Holy Spirit, who is represented by a vast variety 
of figures; as a well of water springing up, as a 
river, a running stream, oil, air, breath, rushing 
wind, fire, light, dew, rain; and that in each case, 
the language which expresses the communication of 
the Spirit, corresponds with the object to which he 
is compared. So far is pouring from being appro- 
priated to the communication of the Spirit's influence, 
that it is often applied to the dispensation of wrath 
and punishment; as in Hos. 5: 10, "I will pour out 
my wrath like water upon them;" in Ezek. 7: 8, 
'• Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee;" 
in chap. 22 : 31, '- Therefore have I poured out my 
indignation upon them." In Revelation, we read of 
angels commissioned to pour out the vials of the 
wrath of God upon the earth (16: 1); and in many- 
other places we find the same figure employed. If, 
then, the facts on which the argument is built, are 
shown to have been falsely assumed, what becomes 
of the argument itself] 

Then, again, our authors have overlooked the 
fact, that where a baptism of the Spirit is really 
spoken of, the pouring out of the Spirit is never 
called the baptism, but is antecedent to it, and in 
order to accomplish it. Whenever 1 administer 
baptism in the church, pouring always precedes it; 
it is the pouring of the water into the baptistery; but 
we never call that the baptism. It is only the means 
of baptism, and, however necessary, is not to be 



89 

confounded with it. Water is poured into a bath, in 
order to bathing ; but the pouring is not the bathing. 
Unless the skies poured down water, we could not 
immerse in brooks, pools or rivers, for all would be 
dried up. But though the one of these is necessary 
to the other, the two things are not identical. On 
the day of pentecost, the disciples were surrounded 
and covered with the emblems of the Spirit; for 
''there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing 
mighty wind, and it filled all the house," accom- 
panied with cloven tongues, like as of fire or ''lam- 
bent flame;" so that, while the event fulfilled the 
prediction of Joel, touching the Christian age, that 
the Spirit should be poured out on God's servants 
and handmaids, the pouring out is never called 
baptism, but was undoubtedly the means of that 
baptism, which John had promised, and for which 
Jesus had bidden his apostles to wait ; saying (Acts 
1: 5), "For John truly baptized with water; but ye 
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many 
days hence." They had received the Spirit before 
this, in their conversion and sanctification ; but, that 
all-pervading influence, that large and extraordinary 
impartation, involving miraculous powers, which is 
called the baptism of the Spirit, they were led to 
expect as Christ's ascension-gift. And when it came, 
it seemed as if the Saviour had " not given his Spirit 
by measure " unto them. Its efiects and extent 
could not be denoted by sprinkling or pouring water 
on the face, for their "v/hole spirit, soul and body" 
were bathed in the celestial influence. Pouring went 
before that baptism, but it was a pouring, in gran- 
deur like that which Job speaks of, when he says 
(29: 6), "The rock poured out rivers;" or which 
Isaiah expressed, when he said of the Lord (30: 28), 
"His breath is as an overflowing stream." In the 
statement of facts, then, our authors have confound- 
ed the means with the end, the antecedent with the 



90 

consequent, and have departed from all Scripture 
usage, in calling pouring, baptism. 

II. But I have said, that, apart from their mis- 
taking the facts before them in the Scriptures, their 
principle of reasoning from the signification of the 
rite is entirely fallacious. This argument, which is 
said to be " decisive of the whole question," rests on 
the assumption, that in a positive institution^ which 
depends on the loill of the laio giver ^ the thing to be 
done is not to be tear 72 ed from the terms of the law, 
but by ascertaining the moral meaning of the rite, 
and choosing for ourselves the Tnost appropriate man- 
ner to express it. For a candid inquirer, a little cool 
reflection will suffice to show the absurdity of such 
a statement. It contains a principle which is prolific 
of evil. It is the essential element of that Jesuitical 
spirit of the Popish church, which enables it to 
explain away, in the view of the multitude, all God's 
explicit commands. No religious observance that 
was ever enjoined in any law, human or divine, 
could endure for a day, if such a principle were 
admitted. Think of it, for a moment. The baptis- 
mal law, contained in the commission, enjoins some 
one particular action, in the name of the Father, Son 
and Holy Ghost, on every Christian. I say, some 
one action, because no one contends that the same 
person should undergo three or four modes of bap- 
tism. But the lav/, instead of making the action 
plain, uses an enacting term, which is uncertain^ 
equivocal^ dete7^mines nothing as to manner^ and 
leaves the inquirer to infer what ought to be done, 
from the spiritual meaning of the rite ! Was ever 
such a law heard of before? No, never, except on 
the ground stated by Dr. Samuel Johnson, when he 
says, respecting the interpretation of law, "a man 
accustomed to satisfy himself with the obvious and 
natural meaning of a sentence, docs not easily shake 
off his habit; but a true bred lawyer never contents 
himself with this sense, when there is another to be 
foimd." 



91 

I pronounce the principle of interpretation involved 
in this whole argument from the signification of the 
rite, to be fallacious and dangerous, 

1. Because it sets aside the words of the law of 
Christy as insufficient^ and not adapted to explain the 
loill of the LaiDgiver. It says that Christ has used 
words which do not expound the duty enjoined ; and 
now, when the question is before us, "what is that 
duty?" it says, this question " does not turn on the 
meaning of the word " found in the law. This is 
degrading the legislation of Jesus Christ, and casting 
a stain upon its character that would be "felt like a 
wound" by any human legislator. As was observed 
by that eminent jurist. Sir William Blackstone,=^ the 
words of a law " are generally to be understood in 
their usual and most known signification; not so 
much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their 
general and popular use." In accordance with this, 
is the remark of Dr. Sherlock, in his Preservative 
against Popery,! wherein, speaking of the exposition 
of law, he says, " When there is no such reason as 
makes one sense absurd and another necessary, the 
law must be expounded according to the most plain 
and obvious signification of the words, though it 
should condemn that which we think there may be 
some reason for, or at least no reason against; for 
otherwise it is an easy matter to expound away all 
THE LAWS OF GOD." A principle which tends to such 
a result, must be false ; and none that was ever 
broached, tends to it more directly and surely than 
that which is the life of the argument before us. 

2. I object to it, because Ijt sets aside that plain 
law of language^ which forbids us to give a figura- 
tive meaning of a ivord precedence over the literal 
and the proper. I have stated it in the words of 
Ernesti; and with these agree the words of President 
Edwards, when reasoning against Socinianism : "In 
words capable of two senses, the natural and the 

* Commentaries, Vol. I, Int., Sec. 11.^ t Vol. 11, App., p. 11. 



92 

proper is the primary, and therefore ought in the first 
place and chiefly to be regarded." 

3. I object to itj further, that it annihilates a j)os- 
itive rite of Christ. Rejecting the very word which 
Christ has chosen as the exposition of his will, it 
seizes the abstract idea of which his institution is 
said to be an emblem, and then makes neio rites, as 
emblems of that idea. Immersion is one rite, sprink- 
ling is another, pouring is another. There is as 
much difference, in form and meaning, between 
immersion and sprinkling, as between baptism and 
the Lord's supper. Any abstract idea, or any spirit- 
ual truth, may be represented by various outward 
signs or emblems. Yet, who but God has the 
authority to exalt one of these into an emblematic 
RITE, and make the observance of it binding on the 
conscience 1 And if he selects one, impresses on it 
his own seal, invests it with the dignity of an ordi- 
nance^ and commands it to be regarded as his ap- 
pointment, who has the right to set it aside, and 
substitute another, on the plea that it will do as well, 
and answer the same end '\ 

For instance : a rent garment, a dress of sack- 
cloth, ashes on the head, a piece of crape, or a black 
seal, are emblems of grief But among us, no one 
of these is an emblematic rite. But suppose, for a 
moment, that clothing one's self in sackcloth had 
been made so by divine appointment, and that on 
the loss of relatives, we were commanded to observe 
it, as a sign of humiliation and sorrow. We would 
naturally expect that the obedient mourner, when he 
should wish to ascertain his duty, would look to the 
words of the law for direction. ''The command- 
ment is a lamp." How plain is the precept! "It 
giveth understanding to the simple." It says, " thou 
shalt clothe thyself in sackcloth." Nothing can be 
more lucid. But he meets with a professed inter- 
preter of the law, who tells him of his mistake, and 
teaches him the principle, that the question of his 



93 

duty is not to be settled by the loords of the law^ but 
by the signijicatioyi of the rite. '' This rite," the 
teacher says, "signifies grief; but grief may be 
signified in various modes. Pouring or sprinkling 
ashes on the head, or wearing a small piece of crape, 
will express it equally well. Especially the former, 
for grief itself is often represented by 'pouring; as, in 
Job 16: 13, ' he poureth out my gall upon the ground ;' 
3 : 24, ' my roarings are poured out like waters ;' 
30 : 16, 'my soul is poured out upon me, the days of 
afiiiction have taken hold upon me.' Now^ if the 
thing signified is represented as poured out^ that 
which signifies it may he ^pouring. Besides, this is 
more easy, cheap and convenient than clothing in 
sackcloth, more adapted to all climes and conditions, 
to all times and seasons. It is contrary to the genius 
of the gospel, to lay great stress on outward rites. 
In respect to these commands, God is not very par- 
ticular. He regards the letter less than the spirit; 
and as pouring ashes has the same signification as 
clothing in sackcloth, either will be a fulfilment of 
the command. Only let us beware of that which is 
most ' cumbrous and inconvenient.' " This exposi- 
tion might be new to the inquirer; but, unless he 
were quite predisposed to surrender his judgment to 
that of his teacher, he could scarcely fail to see its 
fallacy, — that it was actually annihilating the rite 
of God's appointment, and placing another in its 
stead. Fallacious, however, as it may be, it is an 
exact illustration of the principle adopted by our 
authors, which leads them to confound figures of 
speech with emblematic rites, to base an ordinance 
of God upon a class of metaphors, and, instead of 
turning to the law, and letting the proper sense of 
the enacting term make known his will, to reject 
that law, in order to select, from a wide range of 
emblems, one more significant than that which his 
command, by its own force, enjoins. O, what a 
bearing has an expression of the celebrated Charnock 



94 

here ! " If laws may be interpreted according to our 
humors, the power of the law would be more in the 
interpreter than the legislator." 

4 I object to it, again, because it is a principle 
which opens a wide scope for the vagaries of super- 
stition. Our authors observe, speaking of the early- 
ages (p. 135), "It is a fact, incontrovertibly estab- 
lished, that on no subject did superstition so luxuri- 
ate, as upon baptism." Never was there a statement 
more true to history than this ; and while they print 
the/«c^ in capitals, in order to draw attention to it, 
let the reader mark it, that their theory of interpreta- 
tion is the very one which adequately accounts for the 
fact. If, as we aver, the very words of the baptis- 
mal law determine mode, and' confine us to a single 
act as baptism, there is no room given for supersti- 
tious fancies to breathe a moment. A clear, ex- 
plicit law settles every thing, forbidding addition or 
diminution. But if, as the gentlemen say, the enact- 
ing term in the commission of our Lord is of uncer- 
tain import, if it enjoins no particular mode, if 
nothing in the gospel "requires the conscience to be 
burdened with the inquiry whether it shall be done 
in this way or that," if nothing is said " about a 
danger to be incurred, by failing to perform the 
simple ceremonies, precisely after a particular way ". 
(p. 5), but if we are left to infer the manner from 
the spiritual significatio7i of the rite, — then, indeed, 
is a broad and rich field open, in which superstition 
may luxuriate., to its heart's content. Reader, do yon 
not see that from this baleful principle would nat- 
urally spring all those significant emblems, which 
the gentlemen enumerate as accompanying baptism 
in a less enlightened age and land than ours? 
Whence, but from this, arose the anointing with oil, 
the signing ivith the sign of the cross, eating milk 
and honey, j)uttbig on of white garments, and other 
absurd observances, which they have not noticed? 
Our authors' theory of baptism, and this mass of 



95 

superstitions, hold to each other the relation of cause 
and effect. The rite was said to signify purification, 
and any thing that could be a sign of purification 
was thought to be appropriately identified with bap- 
tism. And why not, if we are left to the signification 
of the rite, to infer the proper sign, and the Bible is 
not particular as to manner'? Certainly, "where 
there is no law, there is no transgression ;" and 
those things which our authors call "fooleries" in 
the ancients, were, on their own principle, mere 
matters of taste, and ought to be treated very gently 
by men who deny that there is any clear ^ definite and 
binding statute on the subject. What inconsistency, 
to utter such a sentiment as that, and in the same 
breath to denounce those, who introduced various 
baptismal rites, on the very ground of their signifi- 
cancy^ as emblems of the blessings of the Holy Spirit! 
Cherishing in their own system the germ from which 
such fruits proceed, they ought to have large charity 
for those of other times, who allowed it to have its 
proper growth, — a natural and full development. 

1 proceed to notice the second " important matter," 
which our authors think has been unduly neglected 
in my Review, which is, their objections to the 
argument for immersion, drawn by us from 

BURIAL WITH CHRIST IN BAPTISM. 

They seem to wonder that I should have passed 
by their " whole chapter " on this subject, and placed 
the argument among the "minor points" of the 
discussion. But then, it is evident, that if I had 
shown that the word bajJtize means immersio;, and 
nothing short of that, — if I had invalidated their 
arguments to the contrary, and laid down principles 
which apply to alL such arguments, — the question 
was settled ; the declaration of Paul, " we are buried 
with Christ by baptism," is in such striking corre- 
spondence with that view, as to render it clearer to 
the mind of an inquirer; and if the attempts to 



96 

explain away that correspondence seemed rather 
trifling, it was well to pass them by, in a work 
designed at first to touch only the main point on 
which the controversy turns. But as they attach 
much importance to their argument, let us examine it. 

First of all, they endeavor to raise difficulties in 
the way of receiving that obvious and natural inter- 
pretation of the passages before them (Rom. 6, and 
Col. 2 : 12), which strikes at once the eye of the 
plain reader, which has been acknowledged, by the 
best commentators of all denominations, to be an 
allusion to the primitive practice of immersion, and 
which, stated by Baptists themselves, has carried 
conviction to the minds of millions. 

The first diflaculty is this. Assuming that they 
have proved that the grand design of baptism is to 
teach purification by the Spirit's influences, it ap- 
pears to them impossible that its design should also 
be to represent a burial. '■^ Both cannot he held. 
Purity contrasts with the corruption and filth of the 
grave." 

To this, my answer is two-fold. 1st. Baptism is 
designed to furnish a lively representation of the 
means of our salvation^ by the burial and resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ. Paul brings this to view, in 
the passage before us : "Like as Christ was raised 
UP FROM THE DEAD, by the glory of the Father, so we 
also should walk in newness of life.'" That such 
was the design of baptism, is explicitly asserted 
(1 Pet. 3: 21), "the like figure whereunto even bap- 
tism doth also now save us, by the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ.''^ Now, whatever else is doubtful, this 
end and aim of baptism is clear. No words could 
make it plainer. If baptism can be the memorial of 
only one idea, this last must be received above all 
others, it is so distinctly taught. Most of the pas- 
sages quoted by our authors touching purification, 
have no reference to baptism at all ; of which they 
are well aware, when they say (p. 22). " it is of no 



97 

consequence as to the point before us, whether these 
things are said in connection with baptism or not." 
But the passages now before us have this advantage, 
that their express design is to teach the meaning of 
the rite. And as far as the emblem points to the 
burial and resurrection of Christ, it involves no idea 
of corruption ; for he, the Holy One, was not left in 
the grave, '''■neither did his flesh see corruption,''^ 

2. As far as baptism sets forth our own hope of 
salvation by Christ, the gentlemen forget that it 
represents a resurrection as well as a burial. They 
speak as if Ave had remained always mider the water, 
and see nothing but the emblematic grave. Paul 
speaks of more. He says we are raised up to walk 
IN NEWNESS OF LIFE. There is purification ! We put 
off the old man and put on the neiv man. So, at last, 
when the voice of Christ shall call these bodies from 
their tombs, fashioned like unto his own glorious 
body, this corruption shall have put on incorruption, 
this mortal shall have put on immortality, and we 
shall have passed through di purifying process, to fit 
us for the bliss of heaven. Since this is the Chris- 
tian's peculiar hope, which the wisest of the heath- 
ens never knew, how fitting that the initiating rite 
of Christianity should loudly proclaim it ! 

But it is said (p. 23), this difficulty being sur- 
mounted, another comes. We must prove that the 
passage "refers to toater baptism I ^^ Here we are 
landed into Quakerism, at once. It is as easy to get 
rid of all the passages about water baptism, as of 
this. They say, the argument of the Baptists " rests 
on this assumption, — yet it is mere assumption.''' 
Bold and startling assertion, this, to come from such 
a source ! Do not the gentlemen know that this idea 
is no peculiarity of the Baptists at all, but that most 
of the Pedobaptist writers, throughout the world, 
teach the very same ? It is very strange, if they did 
not know it; and if they did know it, it is '' passing 
strange" that they should allow themselves to speak 
9 



93 

thus. Ay, more. Standard Pedobaptist writers 
generally allow that the passage refers to the prim- 
itive practice of immersion ! I have before me the 
well-known commentary and notes of Dr. McKnight 
(a Presbyterian) on the epistles, who says, in his 
preface to the sixth of Romans, "To show that the 
apostles, who taught the doctrine of justification by 
faith, without works, did not mean to set their disci- 
ples free from the obligations of morality, Paul ob- 
served, that in baptism, the rite of initiation into the 
Christian church, the baptized person is buried under 
THE WATER, as ouc put to death with Christ on 
account of sin, in order that he may be strongly 
impressed with the malignity of sin, and excited to 
liate it, as the greatest of evils. Moreover, in the 
same rite, the baptized person being raised vp out of 
the ivater^ after being washed, he is thereby taught 
that he shall be raised from the dead with Christ, by 
the power of the Father, to live with him for ever in 
heaven." This view, McKnight, who was one of 
the most learned writers of the Scotch church, illus- 
trates more fully in his paraphrase. I might quote 
a host of other critics, of all countries, who say the 
same thing; and, of course, I cannot but marvel 
greatly, that any intelligent man should assert this 
view of the passage to be a mere assum^ition of the 
Baptists. It would be almost as near the truth, to 
say that the doctrine of regeneration is an assump- 
tion of the Baptists. 

3. "This difficulty being surmounted," it is said, 
" another comes. It is a question not so easily 
settled, as to what the likeness shall be. If the 
reader will turn to the passage, he will see that there 
is a comparison with death, with crucifixion, with 
burial, &c. Suppose we insist that baptism shall 
imitate the form of Christ's death, and not his burial 
(for surely the two things are very distinct), what 
would the Tmmersers say?" Why, gentlemen, we 
should say that you had adopted a Popish practice, 



99 

without the least scriptural warrant or authority. 
The Catholics have long insisted on imitating the 
crucifixion, and have instituted an observance for 
the purpose; but who hath required this at tlieir 
hand? If Christ had instituted a rite to commemo- 
rate his scour ging^ we should certainly observe it. 
If he had instituted another, to memorialize the 
manner of his deaths we should also observe that. 
But as he has chosen that baptism should represent 
only his burial and resurrection, we bow to his will. 
Who but he, has authority to prescribe an act of 
ritual worship? In the selection which he has made, 
we see his wisdom ; for burial and resurrection imply 
death, but mere death does not imply burial and 
resurrection; and without the latter, Christ's death 
would have availed us nothing. The sign of the 
cross would have been a stigma, and not an honor. 

4. " This difficulty being surmounted," we are 
told, "another comes. How shall we baptize in a 
way to imitate a burial?" We answer, — as you 
please, only let it be with becoming reverence, " de- 
cently and in order." It is said, ''nations have 
various modes of burial, but in no case do they bury 
by thrusting the body through the soil." We an- 
swer, — the body of Christ was thrust through a 
small aperture into a rocky tomb, and then the 
entrance was closed. The body was thus covered, 
and hidden from sight. Jesus was pleased to com- 
pare his own burial to that of Jonah ; "for as Jonah 
was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, 
so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth." 
The circumstances and the manner of these two 
burials were very different; yet none but a caviller 
would^ fix on the points of difference, because the 
design of the comparison is to mark the points of 
resemblance. A cavil is not an argument; and all 
emblems furnish occasions for cavils of this kind, 
because they only fix on one or more prominent 
points of resemblance, beyond which they do not 



100 

apply. In the Lord's supper, the broken bread is an 
emblem of Christ's body broken for us ; but we know- 
that of that body •' not a bone was broken." The 
breaking of bread has nothing in it to suggest the 
idea of a crucifixion; but when any ask, "What 
mean ye by this service? " we can tell them what 
the points of resemblance are. All we have to do, is 
to preserve the ordinance as it was delivered unto us: 
and any attempt to imj^rove it would be as sacri- 
legious as an attempt to destroy it. 

What we have said is a sufficient reply to the 
fifth and last "difficulty" suggested, drawn from 
the fact that "Christ was not buried in the common 
way. His body was not sunk in the ground, but 
merely laid away on a shelf ^ in a chamber of an 
excavated rock." Nevertheless, he speaks of it as a 
real burial, saying of Mary's anointing, " she did it 
for my burial f and if he wished both that and his 
resurrection to be commemorated in the initiating 
rite of his religion, no emblem could possibly be 
selected, more expressive than an immersion, fol- 
lov/ed by an immediate rising from the water. 

Now, what do all these difficulties, in the way of 
the obvious interpretation of the passage in the sixth 
of Romans, amount to 7 Labor spent in vain. A 
person indisposed to examine them one by one, might 
be impressed by the mere show they make, when 
numbered, and standing together. He might take it 
for granted, v/ithout examination, that if some were 
invahd. one might be sound. But at the first touch, 
they all crumble. They are like a tract, entitled, 
" One hundred Arguments for the Infallibility of the 
Pope." A hundred cyphers in a row, amount to 
nothing. 

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE COMMON INTERPRETATION. 

But what is the interpretation which our authors 
substitute for the common one? Why, they aver, 
that when Paul says (Rom. 6 : 3), " Know ye not 



101 

that so many of you as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ, were baptized into his death?" he had no 
reference to that baptism by which the Romans had 
professed faith in a risen Saviour, but used the term 
figuratively, to denote their reception of the Spirit's 
influences. Yet, nothing is more evident than that 
the apostle recalls to their memory some familiar 
facts^ obvious to the view of an objector to Christian 
doctrine, and adapted to meet his cavil. The cavil 
is brought to view in the first verse, and is to this 
eflect : if, as you say, Christianity teaches that we 
are not saved by good works, but by mere grace, the 
practical inference is, let us have nothing to do with 
good works, and grace will abound the more in our 
pardon. (" Let us continue in sin, that grace may 
abound.") The question between Paul and the 
objector is, whether this is a just practical inference 
. from what had been said, — whether this is the real 
teaching of Christianity. And what, from "the 
drift of Paul's remarks," is his object in alluding to 
baptism? It is, to bring some clear proof that the 
practical teaching of Christianity is contrary to the 
objector's inference. And for this, would Paul 
assume that the Romans had all received the Holy 
Spirit from heaven, and present that as proof to an 
objector against the apostolic doctrine? No. He 
takes what was palpable and obvious to every 
objector, the initiating rite of Christianity^ and 
appeals to its teachings^ — appeals to the holy nature 
of those doctrines of which it is the emblem and 
memorial. This would fully meet the case. An 
ordinance, known to proclaim a fundamental doc- 
trine of our religion, that Christ was "delivered for 
our oflences, and raised again for our justification," 
,that all his disciples profess at the outset to be dead 
and buried to the world, and to rise up to a "new- 
ness of life," would present a most eflective argument, 
an ocular demonstration, to the objector, that the 
teachings of Christianity were against the conclusion. 



102 

let us ''continue in sin." The true inference, then, 
would be, if Christians cherish the principles pro- 
fessed in theirbaptism, they will '■^reckon themselves 
(v. 11) to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto 
God, through Jesus Christ their Lord." 

Our authors object, that water baptism is inade- 
quate to produce such an effect as death to sin. Very 
true ; but the principles which water baptism teach- 
■es, always do, with ^'•absolute certainty ^^^ produce 
death to sin, when they take effect upon the heart ; 
and, therefore, none ought to be baptized, but those 
who, in this moral sense, have died to sin. And 
those who have been baptized, ought to '^ reckon 
themselves dead indeed unto sin." They remark, 
again, "it is not enough to say, such ought to be dead 
to sin ;" but this is just what Paul does say ; " There- 
fore we are buried with him by baptism into death, 
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in 
NEWNESS OF LIFE." That iu the passage before us, 
the apostle speaks of literal baptism, is as evident as 
that he speaks of it any where. He compares our 
rising in baptism to Christ's resurrection, saying, 
^^ Like as Christ loas raised from the dead.^^ Was 
not his a literal burial and resurrection 7 

IS THE LANGUAGE LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE, IN ROM. 6:37 

The great question which our authors have seen 
fit to discuss, touching the passage before us, is, 
whether the baptism spoken of is literal or figurative. 
They say that a literal baptism is entirely out of 
view. We say that the apostle had it in view, and 
is setting forth its spiritual or emblematic meaning. 
Now, is there any rule, to aid us in determining 
whether language is literal or figurative? Is there 
any thing in the science of interpretation? If so, let 
us avail ourselves of it. In Professor Stuart's 
translation of Ernesti on the Principles of Interpre- 
tation (3d edit., p. 74), the following rule is laid 



103 

down for this purpose: ''Words are tropical (or 
figurative) where the subject and predicate disagree." 
Where the thing spoken of in a sentence, and the 
thing asserted of it, are incongruous in their nature, 
the language must be figurative. For instance, the 
fields sniile^ the stones cry out^ the trees clap their 
hands^ &c. So, when men are spoken of as receiv- 
ing a baptism of the Spirit^ the language must be 
figurative, because it is impossible that the Spirit can 
be literally applied to a human body, by sprinkling, 
pouring, immersion, or any other way. But when 
baptism "in the river Jordan" is spoken of, or bap- 
tism in any other water, the language is known to 
be literal, because the subject and predicate of the 
sentence are congruous in their nature. We may 
say at one time, that a man is buried in sleep, in 
amusement, in care, — immersed in business, in study, 
— " dipped deeply in philosophy;" at another, that 
he is buried in the sea, in the ruins of a city, or in a 
shady grove, — without causing confusion of ideas to 
the plainest peasant; because the principle here 
stated by Ernesti, strikes the mind at once, whether 
it be recognized in form or not. So, too, if you 
speak of a man being buried by a storm of snow, by 
a flood of waters, or by immersion in a lake, the 
subject and predicate of the sentence are seen to be 
congruous in their nature, and therefore the language 
is known to be literal. But if you should speak of 
one being buried by a gentle sprinkling, or a slight 
pouring, any mere man might be excused for con- 
fessing his ignorance of what to make of such lan- 
guage. He would be fairly puzzled, to know whether 
he should call it literal or figurative. There might 
be no incongruity between the subject and predicate 
of the sentence, as to their nature^ — the substance 
spoken of might be adapted to burial, as dust, or 
water; but how a gentle sprinkling or a slight pour- 
ing could amount to burial, would be the puzzling 
query. This would be the incongruity of contradic- 



104 

tion. Now, as my opponents have conceded that I 
have proved that the word baptize means immersion 
in some cases, moreover, that it often means immer- 
sion,, and as between immersion and burying there 
is no incongruity^ they must admit, in view of the 
rule just cited, that when Paul speaks of being buried 
by and in baptism^ either that he refers to Uteral 
immersion, or utters a literal contradiction. 

Keeping in mind the rule just mentioned, we pro- 
ceed to observe, that when Paul (in Col. 2 : 11) 
speaks of "circumcision made without hands," he 
evidently uses figurative language; for circumcision, 
the subject spoken of, and the thing predicated of it, 
" made without hands," present ideas incongruous in 
their nature. To interpret that language Uterally, 
would be to assert an impossibility, a contradiction. 
But when, in the next verse (12th), the apostle 
speaks of a burial performed by baptism (which 
"o/^e?^" means immersion), the two ideas are con- 
gruous, and the language must be literal. To this, 
our authors suggest (p. 27), that the Colossians, in 
their baptism, " /lao? risen through faith of the opera- 
tion of God. 'Yet jjersons iminersed do not rise by 
faithy Yes, in our baptism, all onr fellowship of 
spirit, all our sympathy of feeling, with Jesus in the 
design of his baptism, is by faith; and this is the 
apostle's idea, for he says, ye are "buried with him 
in baptism, wherein ye are risen with him, through 
faith of the operation of God, who raised him from 
the dead." He pursues the thought in the third 
chapter, saying, " If ye then be risen with Christ, 
seek those things which are above, where Christ 
sitteth at the right hand of God." As it is in the 
Lord's supper, we literally eat bread and drink wine, 
this is not by faith. But our communion ivith Christ 
and the church in those acts, is by faith; for, "the 
cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com- 
munion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we 
break, is it not tlie communion of the body of Christ?" 
In that holy feast, we do spiritually, by faith, "open 



105 

the door," and he comes in to sup with us, and we 
with him. 

The fact that this figurative circumcision is spoken 
of in the verse preceding that wherein baptism is 
mentioned, is no proof at all that the latter is figura- 
tive. For in the seventh verse of the same chapter, 
we have figurative and literal language in the closest 
possible connection : " Rooted and built up in him, 
and established in the faith." We see it also in 
connection with baptism, in Acts 22: 16; ^' Arise 
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on 
the name of the Lord." 

Another important rule, stated by Ernesti in con- 
nection with this subject (p. 77), is entitled, ^^ Method 
of determining xohether a troupe is adequately under- 
stoody He says, "It is one proof that you under- 
stand tropical language, if you can substitute proper 
words for tropical ones. Not that a person who can 
do this always understands the words ; but if he 
cannot do it, he certainly does not understand them." 
If, then, in the passages before us, baptism be used 
only in a figurative sense, let our authors substitute 
their favorite literal words for it, and see how appo- 
site they would be : ' Therefore we are buried with 
him by sprinkling into death — buried with hion in 
sprinkling — buried with him by pouring, wherein ye 
also are risen with him — buried with him by purifi- 
cation} Really, this would be verifying Paul's 
supposition addressed to the Corinthians (I Cor. 14 : 
11), "If I know not the meaning of the voice, he 
that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." But 
substitute immersion, and all is lucid : ' buried with 
him by immersion into death — buried with him in 
immersion, wherein ye also are risen with him.' 
"Planted together (by immersion) in the likeness of 
his death,^'' &c. On this last verse, Mc Knight beau- 
tifully observes, " The burying of Christ and of 
believers, first in the water of baptism, and after- 
wards in the earth, is fitly enough compared to the 



106 

planting of seeds in the earth, because the effect in 
both cases is a reviviscence to a state of greater 
perfection." 

We might apply the same rule to Peter's declara- 
tion (1 Pet. 3: 21), touching the meaning of the 
figure by which baptism represents our salvation : 
'' The like figure, whereunto even baptism doth also 
now save us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 
Can sprinkling or pouring be the figure of a resur- 
rection 7 

Evident as it is, that the common and obvious 
interpretation of these passages which speak of burial 
with Christ in baptism, is not an error, it is interest- 
ing to see how gravely the gentlemen proceed to 
exhibit the "sources" of what they call "the Im- 
mersers' error touching them." Here, they chiefly 
repeat what they have said before. One suggestion, 
however, at this point, seems quite original. That 
is, that " the first source of error is the imagination J'' 
The Immerser ^^ fancies some analogy between im- 
mersion and Christ's burial." Now, this remark 
exhibits "the source" of our friends' failure in their 
argument. The meaning of these passages lies low 
and level to the eye of common sense ; but they have 
followed out their plan of shooting high, as at "an 
airy fancy on the wing," and so have gone quite 
over the heads of plain readers of the Scriptures. 
But what is very remarkable, is, that the gentlemen 
did not know, or have forgotten the fact, that this 
fancy has nestled in the heads of most of the stand- 
ard Pedobaptist writers, in every age. Men who 
have practised sprinkling, have freely testified, as 
scholars and interpreters, that these passages took 
their rise in the primitive practice of immersion. 
McKnight, whom I have quoted, alludes to Beza, 
who certainly teaches this, in the most exphcit 
manner. Grotius, of the Dutch church, says on 
these passages, "Not only the word baptism, but the 
very form of it, intimates this. For an immersion 



107 

of the whole body in water, so that it is no longer 
beheld, bears an image of that burial which is given 
to the dead. There was in baptism, as administered 
in former times, an image both of a burial and a 
resurrection." Dr. Hammond, of the Church of Eng- 
land, says, on Rom. 6: 3, "It is a thing that every 
Christian knows, that the immersion in baptism 
refers to the death of Christ ; the putting the person 
into the water, denotes and proclaims the death and 
burial of Christ." Burkitt says, on the same pas- 
sage, "The apostle alludes, no doubt, to the ancient 
manner and way of baptizing persons in those hot 
countries, which was by immersion, or putting them 
under the water for a time, and then raising them 
up again out of the water; which rite had also a 
mystical signification, representing the burial of our 
old man, sin in us, and our resurrection to newness 
of life." Precisely the same idea is stated by 
Witsius, Whitby, Bishop Patrick, Bishop Taylor, 
and Bishop Hoadly, the last of whom has used 
language fully as strong as I could wish to com- 
mand, saying of the times of the apostles, "i/" hap- 
tism had been then performed as it is now amongst 
us, we should never have so much as heard of this 
form of expression, of dying and rising again in this 
ritey (See Hoadly's Works, Yol. Ill, p. 890.) 

Why should I go on to quote these, and a host of 
others, more largely? They all unite in the same 
view of these texts. Those quotations which I have 
made, though brief, are of so decisive a character, as 
to show for themselves that they do not misrepresent 
the opinions of their authors. And in wha,t a pitiful 
plight do they place the assertion, that this view is a 
mere fancy and a peculiar error of the Baptists. 
How clearly do they show, that if the Baptists err, 
they err with the learning of the world on their side ; 
and that if the leading writers of various churches 
and different ages practised sprinkling, it was not at 
the sacrifice of scholarship and candor. 



108 

Among '' important matters omitted," our authors 
place next in order their presumptive arguments 
against immersion. But why should I notice these ? 
If the baptismal law is clear and explicit, these have 
no force against it ; and if that law is not explicit 
and determinate, our liberty to do as we please, 
touching baptism, follows of course, without any 
such array of reasons. Suppose a Papist should 
present to me presumptive arguments in favor of 
withholding the wine from the people in the eucha- 
rist, drawn from convenience, cheapness, simplicity, 
sobriety, indifference of outward forms, the superior 
decency of the priest taking the cup alone in behalf 
of the people, instead of passing it from lip to lip, — 
would I answer these in detail ? It would be use- 
less. I would bring to bear upon him the plain 
command, " Drink ye all of it." If he should tram- " 
pie on this, and continue to urge his presumptive ' 
arguments, I would only adopt the psalmist's prayer, 
"Lord, keep back thy servant from presumptuous 
sins." 

As to the remarks (p. 86) on my omitting to notice 
the suggestions touching "the degree of certainty " 
which my cause demands, I cannot see any occasion 
for them. It is evident, from my Review, that I took 
the ground that the Scriptures set forth immersion as 
the only apostolic baptism, with as much certainty ^s 
any subject can be exhibited by means of words as 
signs of ideas. 

In regard to the section on page 87 of the Rejoin- 
der, designed to give a general statement of what I 
have attempted to pi^ove, sufficient has been said on 
pages nine and ten of this Examination. I proceed 
to notice the section, entitled, 

learned critics and theologians. 

This consists of sentences from the writings of 
learned Pedobaptists, men who practised sprinkling, 
containing the expression of opinions in favor of that 



109 

practice. ^ No doubt, in this way a long chapter 
might easily be made. No doubt, all Pedobaptist 
theologians have been disposed to defend the custom 
of their church, on some ground or other. But 
whether those of them who are really eminent schol- 
ars, have made the proper meaning of the word the 
basis of their argument, is a distinct and an impor- 
tant question. Having presented a number of quota- 
tions, my reviewers say, "In view of these facts, in 
what light appears Mr. Hague's turgid boast, that all 
the learning of the world sustains his side of the 
controversy ? He is confounded by his own wit- 
nesses." In connection with this remark, they 
exhibit a list of names, to which I made no reference 
at all,— the names of men whose works are almost 
entirely inaccessible to the American public, and 
whose writings the gentlemen have not quoted, 
with those references to the edition and the page, 
which would enable a reader to examine them for 
himself. Was it expected by our authors, that only 
those would read their book who would take every 
thing on trust, nor cherish one wish to verify their 
assertions 7 

Out of a list of thirty-seven names, there are only 
three whom I summoned as " witnesses." These 
are Luther, Calvin and Beza. They are names of 
note, and my claims to their testimony on the mean- 
ing of the word baptize, the only point on which I 
appealed to them, may be easily vindicated. 

(1.) As to Luther, the reader has seen how ample 
and clear is the testimony which I have cited on 
pages 22 — 25 of this pamphlet. Let him ponder that 
soberly. He may consider, also, this which I now 
add from Luther's works : " The other thing which 
belongs to baptism, is the sign or the sacrament, 
which is the dipping into the water, from whence 
also it hath its name. For to baptize, in Greek, is 
to dip, and baptizing is dipping." " Baptism is a 
sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved 
10 



110 

by this reason, I would have those who are to be 
baptized, to be altogether dipt into the water, as the 
word doth express, and the mystery doth signify." "^ 
Neither of these remarks of the reformer is a mere 
"casual expression, which gives a clue to his opin- 
ions," as our authors designate some expressions 
which they quote; each one is a bold, simple, 
decisive expression of the truth. Will the gentlemen 
meet what I here bring forward fairly, and invalidate 
these citations, or else concede my claim to Luther's 
testimony 7 

(2.) As to Calvin, I quoted him as a scholar on 
the meaning of the word, declaring that on that 
ground he founded no defence of sprinkling. If he 
draws an argument from convenience, or the fitness 
of sprinkling as a symbol of a spiritual truth, that 
is quite another thing, and each one, for himself, 
may judge of its worth. But my opponents have 
quoted nothing from him which really affects my 
position. Their last citation has some appearance 
of doing this, but then, they have taken only half of 
the sentence; the other half and the succeeding one 
explain Calvin's views. I will quote them in con- 
nection, placing the quotation of the Rejoinder in 
smaller print, so as to mark it distinctly. 

" But, whether the person baptized be wholly immersed, and 
whether thrice or not, or whether water be only poured or 
sprinkled upon him, is of no importance." 

Here Messrs. Cooke and Towne's quotation ends, 
and some exulting expressions follow. Calvin pro- 
ceeds, "Churches ought to be left at liberty to act 
according to the difference of countries. The very 
word baptize, however, signifies to immerse, and it 
is certain that immersion was the practice of the 
ancient church."! Here, we see, the word however 
marks the transition from Calvin's expressing a 
theological opinion, to his asserting the real force of 

* Works, Wittenburg edit., Torn. II, Fol. 79. t Institutes, Book IV, Chap. 15. 



Ill 

the word. On this pointj his declaration is explicit, 
his concession is ample. Although this reformer did 
not, like Luther, endeavor fully to restore immersion, 
yet they both agree as to the import of the term. 

What an unfortunate remark my reviewers have 
uttered, when they say, "Probably, Mr. Hague had 
never read Calvin, and cited him on the authority of 
some controversialist on his side of the question." 
This places me under the necessity of assuring them, 
that I have a manuscript, containing this extract 
from Calvin, penned by my own hand, long before I 
had the pleasure of knowing either of their names. 
Before I received ordination to the ministry, I con- 
sulted Calvin on this point, and this concession made 
a strong impression on my mind. 

(3.) My third witness on this list is Beza. They 
say that I quote him " with an air of triumph," and 
add, "but if Mr. Hague will adopt Beza's sentiments, 
there will be no further need of controversy." There 
is a little sophistry in this, — an evasion of the point. 
I spoke of Beza among the adherents of the custom 
of sprinkling, and cited his testimony, as a scholar, 
on the meaning of the word baptize. This testimony 
I urged as a concession. His practice of sprinkling 
rested on other grounds. His assertion of the mean- 
ing of the word is explicit. He declares what it 
does mean, and what it does not. (1.) He says it 
means more than zegvmisLv (to wash hands), because 
this has respect only to the hands ; baptism, to the 
whole body. (2.) He says, "To be baptized in 
water, signifies no other than to be immersed in 
water, which is the external ceremony of baptism." 
He declares, "nor does baptizein signify to wash, 
except by consequence." This is positive and 
exclusive. Besides the quotation in my Review, let 
the reader notice that on the 15th page of this Ex- 
amination. Our authors quote Beza as saying, " yet 
baptizo is taken move largely for any kind of wash- 
ing, where there is no dipping at all." Well, Luther 



112 

said il is so taken, but declared that it could not be 
done properly, and therefore he wished immersion to 
be restored. That it is so taken now-a-days, is a 
fact which all admit; but whether it ought to be so, 
is an important question. That it was so taken in 
Beza's day, and had been long before, is evident. 
But Beza denied that this usage, introduced by the 
Latins, was in accordance with the proper meaning 
of the term. Our authors ask, "But does Beza say 
that it means ?zo^/iz7z^ but immej^sion? ^^ I answer, 
yes; his position is precisely that which 1 maintain 
in relation to it. Can any words be clearer than 
those which I have quoted? They ask, again, 
"Does Beza say that immersion is essential to the 
rite?" That is a different question. If Beza had 
been asked, what is the meaning of the words bread 
and wine, in the institution of the Lord's supper, he 
would undoubtedly have given the same answer that 
I should to that question. But whether he would 
agree with those who say that these elements are 
not essential to the rite, and that, under some circum- 
stances, "fish and water" would answer the pur- 
pose, would remain to be seen. A man's assertion 
about the sense of words is one thing; his specula- 
tive opinions about the nature and importance of 
rites, is another thing. For instance, the Quakers 
do not hold to the necessity of water baptism at all ; 
but they are strong in their assertion of the meaning 
of the term. Barclay, one of their leading writers, 
says, the Greek word baptizo signifies immerse, that 
is, to plunge and dip in; and that was the proper 
use of water baptism among the Jews, and also by 
John and the primitive Christians who used it; 
whereas our adversaries only sprinkle a little water 
on the forehead, which doth not at all answer to the 
word baptism."^ William PexNN and other Friends 
assert the same thing; and as they set aside all 

* Works, Providence edit., p. 440. 



113 

outward modes, they may be considered impartial 
umpires on this question. 

In perfect keeping with the editorial style of writ- 
ing, and that tact in controversy recommended in 
the columns of tho Puritan, our authors roundly 
assert, that I have been "proclaiming to the world, 
that Beza is a close-communion Immerser !" And 
yet, on page 26 of my Review, I was particular to 
state his character and position, and to add, that he 
was not a Baptist in practice. I would not censure 
my opponents for cherishing some warmth of feeling 
in defending their sentiments ; but this statement 
seems to glow with a spirit somewhat malign. They 
add, " we are almost tempted to exclaim, O shame ! 
where is thy blush !" If this expression followed the 
discovery of some mistake on my part, I should not 
object to it, even though it were severe^ for truth is 
sometimes severe. But connected as it is with an 
assertion so obviously unfounded, I deplore it as 
seeming like the etiervescence of a ruffled mind, the 
expression of a feeling which it ill becomes Christian 
teachers to indulge. 

Having established my claim to the testimony of 
the witnesses whom 1 cited, I would remark respect- 
ing others whom my reviewers have alluded to, that 
where they express their sentiments in favor of 
sprinkling on account of convenience, custom, the 
indifference of Christianity to all outward forms, on 
the fitness of sprinkling as a symbol of some spiritual 
truth, that quotations touching these arguments, are 
not at all to the point,_ when the great question is, 
what is the meaning of the word'? If the principle, 
that "the Bible alone is the rule of faith," be that 
TRUTH which is the life of Protestantism, and if the 
v/ord baptize, in Christ's commission, properly means 
immerse, as Luther, Calvin and Beza declare, then, 
we have no resort but to obey that command, or 
prove untrue to the vital spirit of the Reformation. 
The inconsistency of the early Protestants on this 
10=^ 



114 

point, was often urged against them by Catholic writ- 
ers with very great effect. 

Here we see on what side of the controversy stands 
the general 

LITERATURE OF THE WORLD. 

Referring to my remark, that the literature of the 
world is w4th us on this point, my Reviewers say, 
" this is comforting, if true.'' I assent to this, and 
add, it is true as it is comforting. When we leave 
the realm of dogmatic theology, and turn to those 
works which represent the literature of the world in 
history and philology, what do we find? All that 
we wish, to establish our position. Does such a 
work as the Edinburgh Encyclopedia represent any 
part of European literature ? The very sentence 
which I have quoted on page 39, from Jones' Biblical 
Cyclopedia, and refused to urge it on the attention of 
my reader as authority, because that author was a 
Baptist, may be found, word for word, in the Edin- 
burgh Encyclopedia, and as coming from such a 
source, I now ask the reader to re-peruse it as a por- 
tion of the world's literature. Does the Encyclopedia 
Britannica deserve to be named as a standard work 
of British literature? It takes the same ground on 
this point as the Edinburgh, and asserts that sprink- 
ling was introduced into England from a regard to 
convenience, and that immersion was " at length 
quite excluded," through the influence of the church 
of Geneva in the days of queen Elizabeth. Is the 
Encyclopedia Americana a work of any literary 
note? It takes a similar position, speaks of the 
custom of sprinkling having been received from the 
Romish church by Protestants, and being now 
practised by all of them except the Baptists. The 
Encyclopedia Ecclesiastica, published under the 
sanction of the highest literary names in England, 
states the same thing, and declares, that when 
in ancient times, sprinkling was admitted in be- 



115 

half of persons, in great necessity, " at the point 
of death on a bed of sickness, it was considered in- 
deed as not giving the party the full privileges of 
baptism." Such men as Porson, Neander, and Au- 
gusti, speaking as literary men, use the strongest 
expressions, the last of them saying, " the word bap- 
tism, according to etymology and usage, signifies to 
immerse, submerge, &c. ; and the choice of the word 
betrays an age in which the later custom of sprink- 
ling had not been introduced." 

Most of these great works our readers can consult 
for themselves; and if these things be so, and the 
Protestant principle be just, that the Bible alone is 
the rule of faith, it evidently follows that the com- 
mission of our Lord binds us to immersion. 

THE CITATIONS FROM THE CLASSICS, 

were shown in my Review, to have been falsely ap- 
plied by the authors of the "Hints." I selected the 
strongest, especially the one printed in capitals, 
showed the fallacy of their application and the 'prin- 
ciple on which all the rest may be set aside. There 
are two important facts, however, connected with_^ 
these cases, which I did not mention. I will now 
state the facts, and the reason why X did not men- 
tion them. 

(1.) The first fact is this : those Greek sentences 
on which my opponents rely, to show that the word 
baptize does not define any way of applying water, 
contain a word which is never used in the New Tes- 
tament to designate the ordinance of baptism. That 
word is bapto ; the word used in the New Testa- 
ment is baptizo. (2.) Between these words there is 
a marked difference. The latter is a consecrated 
term, uniformly applied by Christ and his apostles 
to his ordinance. The first (bapto) is never used to 
denote the ordinance, and the second (baptizo) is 
never used to denote the act of dyeing or coloring. 



116 

Of course, all those examples quoted by my oppo- 
nentSj containing only the word bapto^ fail to answer 
their purpose. They are not to be regarded as proofs ; 
for how can we prove the import of a rite, by means 
of a word which is never applied to it 7 

The reasons of my not mentioning these facts in 
my Review were these. When I wrote that brief 
pamphlet, I was aware that Dr. Carson had brought 
out this distinction clearly. But I had, resolved at 
the outset to quote no Baptist writer as authority ; 
knowing that among the Pedobaptists themselves, 
professed scholars somewhat removed from the din 
of controversy, had furnished ample means of con- 
futing my opponents. And not having read the arti- 
cle of Prof. Stuart since the year 1833, when it was 
published, and then, with an eye to the main points 
only, it did not occur to me that he had also marked 
this distinction, and expressed his full agreement 
with Dr. Carson on this point. Prof. Stuart read Dr. 
Carson's work, while his own article was going 
through the press, and refers his reader to it for 
more copious illustration. Not remembering this at 
the time, I refused to avail myself of the distinction 
pointed out by Dr. Carson. • It was not necessary 
for me to do it, because to me it is evident, that the 
primary meaning of bapto has never been lost, but 
that it lives and modifies all the applications of the 
word ; or as Dr. Carson himself declares (p. 74), 
" These two meanings, dip and dye, are as parent 
and child." But since I find, on re-examining Prof. 
Stuart's treatise, that he also is clear and decisive in 
stating the difference, and that it cannot be called a 
peculiarity of the Baptists, I am ready to propose it, 
and call on all our readers to observe, that my oppo- 
nents, in order to prove their point, rely on the sec- 
ondary meaning of a word, which is never used in 
the Bible to denote the ordinance of baptism. As 
the inspired writers carefully avoid the application 
of the shorter word used by dyers to the sacred rite, 



117 

there must have been in this, some design of the di- 
vine Spirit ; and our authors have not pleaded one 
instance in their own favor, in which the word used 
in the New Testament occurs at all ? In their exam- 
ples, however, they cover up this fact from the eye 
of the English reader, by putting the English word 
(baptize) in a parenthesis, instead of spelling the 
Greek word, so as to show which of the two they 
employ. 

As I said, I did not intend to avail myself of this 
distinction, until I found that Prof. Stuart stands up 
with Dr. Carson as a witness, to all Pedobaptists, of 
the important fact. Although apart from this dis- 
tinction, it may be proved most clearly, that Christ 
enjoined immersion in the commission, yet the state- 
ment just made, is a mighty stride towards settling 
the controversy. All who look closely at the subject 
see it to be so, and when Dr. Carson defies all the 
Greek scholars in the world to produce an instance 
in which (baptizo) baptize means to dye or color, 
if his position be maintained, they well know the 
ultimate result, in a land where intelligence is dif- 
fused, where conscience is free, and the Bible exalted 
as the rule of faith and practice. They see the 
wisdom of Prof. Stuart, in placing his adherence to 
sprinkling, not so much on the ground of scriptural 
evidence, as on the indifference of all modes. 

In the preceding remarks, the reader will see the 
reason why Dr. Carson manifests so little interest in 
contending for those examples in which the word 
hwpto occurs. His mind is filled with the importance 
of the fact, that this word is never used to designate 
the Christian rite, and that it is not the turning point 
of the controversy. He feels strong, too, in his posi- 
tion, that the word which is applied to the ordinance, 
is never used by dyers, nor applied to the act of 
coloring. He is desirous to narrow the ground of 
controversy, and is prepared to say to all his oppo- 
nents, Now, brethren, what will you do 7 Your 



118 

arguments for different modes are built on the secon- 
dary use of bapto^ and are not apposite to this case. 
Even if I should concede all that you wish as to 
that word, you will not have touched the main point 
in question. And I defy you to prove, that in Greek 
literature, the word baptizo must necessarily have 
any secondary meaning at all. 

In connection with their remarks on the classical 
use of the words, our authors introduce a letter from 
Rev. Edward Beecher, D. D., called forth by a refer- 
ence which I made to one of his statements on the 
31st page of my Review. The criticisms here pre- 
sented are worthy of note, and I would ask the read- 
er's particular attention to 

PRESIDENT BEECHEr's LETTER. 

The occasion of this letter, addressed to Rev. Mr. 
Towne, was an allusion which I made to the follow- 
ing remark of Pres. Beecher, on the Jewish ritual : 
" Nor is the washing of clothes, so often spoken of, 
enjoined by a word denoting immersion." Against 
this statement, I quoted a law of purification recorded 
in Numbers 31 : 23, — ' and all that abideth not the 
fire, ye shall make go through the xoater.^ 

In regard to this law. President Beecher says, "it 
is not a specific command to wash clothes at all, but 
a general command to cause that to pass through the 
water which will not stand the fire." In reply to 
this suggestion, I would respectfully ask, if the word 
raiment does not mean clothes ? If it does not, then 
Dr. Beecher's remark is just : if otherwise, then it is 
erroneous, because in the context, raiment is specified 
as one of the articles to be purified by water. In 
verse 20th, it is said, ' purify all your raiment, and 
all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, 
and all things made of wood !' Now if raiment de- 
notes clothes, and raiment is specified as an article 
to go through the water, then this is a specific com- 
mand to wash clothes. 



119 

Dr. Beecher observes, moreover, that " the passage 
refers to the purification of spoils taken from an 
enemy. It does not relate to the ' washing of the 
clothes so often spoken of This was the washing 
of the person's own clothes." I did not think, that 
he would fix on a distinction like this ; for what rea- 
son in the world can we have to imagine that their 
mode of washing clothes taken from an enemy, would 
differ from their usual mode of washing their own 
clothes when unclean ? Did any Jew ever suppose, 
that his own clothes could be washed or purified by 
sprinkling? 

Again ; Dr. Beecher says, that if this passage did 
contain the command which he refers to, " it con- 
tains no word denoting immersion." To this I an- 
swer, it contains a phrase which involves necessarily 
the idea of immersion, and is adapted to explain 
what Moses meant, and what the Jews understood 
to be the proper way of washing clothes. 

.Again, Dr. Beecher says, " The command to which 
I did refer, occurs in the very next verse, and fully 
sustains my assertion." — " I spoke of a word in which 
an oft-repeated injunction is given, and mentioned 
the identical word, viz. ons^ and affirmed that it did 
not denote immersion," and will Mr. Hague venture 
to deny the truth of my assertion concerning it?" 
(p. 114 — 115.) In answer to this, I would ask, in 
return, does not President Beecher know that the 
Hebrew word in question truly and properly denotes, 
to tread or press down somethings namely clothes, in 
a trough or other vessel 7 And if water was used for 
washing, that the act of treading or pressing down 
the clothes in the vessel involved their immersion, of 
course ? Can clothes be trodden down in a vessel of 
water, and not be immersed? Now, that this is the 
real force of the word, there can be no doubt. It is 
directly asserted by Gesenius, in his lexicon ; and, if 
the reader would fain be satisfied, I would ask him 
to turn to the word in Dr. Robinson's edition of that 



120 

work. Let not Dr. Beecher say, then, that it is I 
who venture to deny his statement ; I only assert 
that it is denied by the best Hebraists in the world. 
The question, whether his assertion of the native 
force of the word be right or wrong, turns on the 
answer to another, namely, whether, if clothes are 
trodden down in a vessel of water, it necessarily 
follows that they are immersed, or not 7 

While President Beecher's pen is in his hand, he 
takes the opportunity to present Mr. Towne with 
several "authorities and facts," to show ''that those 
to whom the Greek was vernacular, did regard 
baptizo as signifying to purify, irrespective of mode." 
The first passage is from Clement of Alexandria 
(Strom., Book lY). In this, that learned writer 
asserts two things, an opinion and a fact. (1.) The 
opinion is, that a resemblance of baptisin proceeded 
from Moses to the Greek poets. " He illustrates it 
by two instances: Penelope washed herself, and put 
on clean apparel, and went to her devotions. Te- 
lemachus washed his hands in the ocean, and prayed 
to Minerva." For the first case of washi7ig, Homer 
lises the word udraino ; for the second case, nipto. 
President Beecher's question is, whether these wash- 
ings, which were a resemblance of Mosaic baptisms, 
are expressed by words denoting immersion. His 
first question is this: "Is not udraino a generic 
word, to denote washing or purification 7 Is it not 
as generic as katharizo?^^ 1 reply, it is not as ge- 
neric as katharizo, to denote purification, for this 
latter applies to purification by fire or by expiation, 
as well as by water. The former word is confined 
to water. It means wetting and washing, and is 
often applied to the act of bathing. (See Donnegan's 
Lexicon.) We know that bathing was among the 
sacred rites of the Greeks, and this fact would inter- 
pret to them the idea of Homer as to the case of 
Penelope. An act of bathing among the Greeks 
would resemble an act of bathing among the He- 



121 

brews, sufficiently to suggest to Clement the thoughtj 
that the one people derived the rite from the other. 

So in regard to washing hands. President Beech- 
er asks, "Dare any one say that nipto denotes 
immersion? Is washing of the hands immersion?" 
I answer, the hands may be washed without their 
immersion; but the declaration of Homer is, ''Te- 
lemachus washed his hands in the ocean.^'' That 
was undoubtedly immersion. What Clement de- 
clares is just this ; that such was the resemblance 
between the Jewish and the Grecian rites, that the 
latter might have been taken from the former. Such 
was his opinion. 

(2.) The FACT which Clement states, is, that '^ this 
was the custom of the Jews, that they should be 
often baptized" — how? in what circumstances? 
'' Upon their couches," says President Beecher. I 
have the best authority in the world, for saying that 
Clement asserted no such thing. This last phrase is 
a wrong translation. His expression is, they were 
baptized, — btil Konrj ("posi concubitum") ; that is, 
after the use of the bed. The word in Clement is the 
same as that used by Paul in Romans, where it is 
rendered "chambering."=^ The best edition of Clem- 
ent's works, is that of Archbishop Potter, published 
in England in the year 1715, and re-published at 
Venice in 1757, under the sanction of the Doge and 
several Italian scholars. The latter edition is the one 
which I have consulted, — an edition more highly 
respected in Europe for the sake of reference, than 
any other. The learned editor has a note on this 
very phrase, stcv aom] ; and referring to a certain 
writer, who had rendered it in Latin by the words, 
"in lecto," — on the couch,— pronounces it to be u 
corrupt translation.! 

*Rom. 13: 13. 

fThe note is as follows: BTtt, xotT?;— Hoc est post concubitum. Hervetua 
perperam vertit, in lecto. 

11 



122 

It is probable that this Latin version was the 
source of President Beecher's mistake. As to its 
merits, Archbishop Potter says, " The translation of 
HervetuSj which is the one most used by learned 
men, although often altered for the better^ neverthe- 
less in many things, even yet, is so foreign from the 
author's meaning, in others so lame and imperfect, 
in very many cases so ambiguous and obscure, that 
often in Clement's own work, there is nothing more 
wanting than Clement himself; and not unfrequently 
the Latin needs to be explained by the Greek, more 
than the Greek by the Latin. And, finally, he who 
should undertake to correct this as much as the case 
requires, would evidently be cleaning an Augean 
stable." 

What now becomes of President Beecher's asser- 
tion, that, according to Clement, the Jews were bap- 
tized on their beds ? It is seen to be founded on an 
error. The best editions of Clement, published in 
Europe a century ago, would have furnished him 
the means of avoiding it, if he had carefully con- 
sulted them. But it is evident that he has been 
hasty. If this is a specimen of his way of reading 
the Greek fathers, his citations from them will not 
possess a very high authority. 

The letter before us presents two instances of the 
use oibapto^ which are said to be "quite decisive" 
against the idea of immersion. The first is from the 
Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius (Book 4, lines 
156, 157), where, it is said, '' occurs the most re- 
markable case of immersion or dipping on record, if 
it be true that bapto always means to dip." Others, 
however, who are well acquainted with the work 
just mentioned, and who have no theological theory 
to support, have found nothing remarkable in this 
case of dipping. It was such a dipping as occurs 
every day. It was not, as President Beecher thinks, 
the baptism of a serpent. The facts are these. A 
HUGE SERPENT riscs up bcforc Medea and Jason, — 



123 

'' with uplifted head seeking to devour them. Medea 
then resorts to a soporific mixture in a cup or goblet, 
and, in the words of the poet," 

/Z^' ds fitv agxsvdoio vsov TeT/nsoii, dal'Aco 
Baniovg sx xvaewvog axr^qaTa qjagfiax aoidavg 
'PaLve xuT oq)6aXfJixiv. 

That is ('"if bapto means dip"), she, with a newly- 
cut juniper bough, dipping out of the cup the strong 
poisons, sprinkled them, with songs, upon his eyes. 
Now in this case, the dipping was not ' remarkable.' 
It is natural enough to dip a bough in a liquid, in 
order to sprinkle the liquid. Just as in Numbers 19 : 
18, Moses commands that one should " dip hyssop 
in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent." The 
difference between one and the other act, is distinctly 
marked in both cases. Apollonius does not say that 
the serpent was baptized at all; but that the leafy 
rod of juniper was dipped, and with it, the serpent 
was sprinkled about the eyes. 

That my statement of the meaning of the poet in 
this passage is correct, may be more evident to the 
reader, by looking at the following translation of it, 
from a celebrated work. It was made by Fawkes, 
who published translations of Apollonius, Sappho, 
Bion, Moschus, and other Greek poets. It may be 
found in Anderson's British Poets. It runs thus : 

A branch of juniper the maid applies. 
Steeped in a baneful 'potion, to his eyes; 
Its odors strong the branch diffused around. 
And sunk the enormous beast in sleep profound. 

Lond. Edit,, 1795. 

Certainly, the translator saw both dipping and sprink- 
ling here : the first, of the bough, the second, of the 
beast. 

But President Beecher remarks, " the Greek scho- 
liast sees no immersion here." On what ground does 
the President say this ? Simply because the Greek 
scholiast declares that "in. these and the following 



124 

words the poet says, that Medea, sprinkling the poi- 
son with the juniper branch, put the dragon to sleep.' 
Very true. That is evident enough. But does the 
schohast say, that Medea did not dip the bough? 
Not at all. Unfortunately for Pres. Beecher's ver- 
sion of the passage, he has thrown in the remark, 
that " the editor illustrates it by a reference to the 
passage in Virgil, in which the god of sleep shakes a 
bough, moistened with Lethean water, over the tem- 
ples of Palinurus, and puts him to sleep." But did 
it not occur to our author, that Virgil speaks of that 
bough as having been soaked in the river Styx,- 
" vique Stygia soporatam 7""^ The reader may see- ] 
hoAv distinctly this is expressed by the translation of 
Dr. Trapp, professor of poetry at Oxford : — 

Wet with Lethean dew, and steeped in Styx. 

In our school-boy days we read the passage over 
and over again, but never imagined that a bough 
had the power of scattering drops of Stygian water, 
without having first been put into it. 

I am much obliged to Pres. Beecher for alluding 
to this passage in Virgil, it is such a capital example, 
so exactly to the point. The bough was dipped, and 
then the water was sprinkled with it. As Potter 
observes in his Grecian Antiquities, it was customary 
with the Greeks to dip a torch in sacred water, and 
then sprinkle surrounding objects. For a torch, 
they often substituted a bough. f This is just what 
was done by Medea. According to Pliny, a juniper 
bough was deemed particularly etfectual against ser- 
pents.:|: We see, at a glance, from the nature of the 
case, that the bough must have been dipped in the 
poisonous drugs, in order to smear the serpent's eyes. 
The version in some sense speaks for itself. The 
mention of the dipping of the leafy rod, was neces- 

* ^neid, v. 854. + Potter's Gr. Ant., lib. ii, chap. 4. 

% Pliny, lib. xxiv, c. 8. 



125 

sary to a complete description of the act of Medea. 
Without this, an important circumstance would have 
been omitted. With this, every thing is natural and 
in its place. And with this, the passage presents no 
difficulty at all. It is only necessary to look at it 
closely in its connection, in order to be convinced. 
Time was, when in the court of Pharaoh, Aaron 
threw down a rod upon the ground, and it became a 
serpent; but in this case as put by Pres. Beecher, 
when we set clearly in the light the subject of Me- 
dea's baptism, behold another wonder ; — the serpent 
becomes a rod ! 

A SECOND Example. To show that bapto has lost its 
primary meaning of immersion, another passage is 
cited from Lucien. The writer does not tell where 
his quotation occurs ; but the reader may find it in 
the dialogue between Lycinus and the Cynic. We 
are told by Pres. Beecher, that \i bapto means to dip, 
the sentence is, " the flesh of the shell-fish (called 
noQcpvQo) can not only be eaten, but can also dip or 
immerse." He adds, " dip or immerse what? And 
how can flesh dip or immerse any thing?" To this 
I answer, that Lucieri himself has told how, in the 
preceding sentence, which our author has omit- 
ted to notice. Lucien has told precisely what he 
means, and his meaning is entirely consonant with 
the idea of immersion. Look at the preceding sen- 
tence. The Cynic asks Lycinus, if those who use 
the shell-fish not only for food, but for dyeing, by 
manufacturing the flesh into dye-stufl' liquids^^ do 
not act contrary to nature? Lycinus answers, No: 
that nature had rendered the flesh of the fish fit not 
only to be eaten, but also {lja])tebi) to dye. Now, 
although Lucien has just explained the manner of 
this dyeing, that it is done by making a dye-stuff 
liquid out of the flesh, Pres. Beecher overlooks this 

* Bacpag fi7]xi]va)fisvoi. See Donnegan's Lex. on ^acpag. 
11^ 



126 

as if it were quite irrelevant. Is it proper to take a 
fragment of a conversation, which expresses only a 
part of an idea, and bivild an argument upon it, as if 
it contained the whole ? If Lucien tells us that the 
dyeing was performed by manufacturing the flesh 
into a liquid, then we see how in this case the word 
bapto may denote dyeing by dipping. 

Although I have spoken of the difference between 
hapto and baptizo^ and of the reason why the former 
is comparatively an unimportant word in this dis- 
cussion, yet I am not willing to see even this word 
seized by force, and pressed, contrary to its nature, 
into the service of a cause which it disowns. Its 
primary meaning, to dip, still lives ; and while it 
lives, will modify the applications of the word. 
To denote the act of dyeing in other ways, other 
words are used, although by a rhetorical figure, this 
may be employed to denote simply a certain effect, 
or the appearance of a thing when it looks as if it 
had been dipped. Thus, the ancients called a certain 
gem baptes : why? It had not been colored by art, 
it had never been affected by sprinkling, pouring, or 
dipping; it retained its natural hue, but it was called 
baptes^ because it appeared as if it had been dip>ped. 
So in regard to the priests at Athens called Baptai, 
of whom our authors speak ; they used paint in a 
way which suggested the same idea. On that pas- 
sage in the Old Testament where we are told that 
Jezebel 'painted her face,' Bishop Patrick remarks, 
that the Hebrew expression is, "she put her eyes in 
paint." The appearance of the eye was here referred 
to ; for the custom of dipping a bodkin or silver wire 
in stibium^ a dye-stuff, and moving it under the eye- 
lid, caused the ball of the eye to look as if it had 
been put into paint. The Baptai at Athens, however, 
were called by that name not merely from the use of 
paint, but because in their initiating rites they were 
immersed in warm water. (On this see Stephanus's 
Latin Thesaurus.) 



127 

In regard to lexicons^ President Beecher has made 
some very singular remarks. He says that he has 
examined several made by Greek writers, with 
definitions in Greek, and gives us a specimen of 
what he calls a definition from one of them. He 
says, Zonaras expressly defines baptis7n to be " for- 
giveness of sins by water and the Spirit ! " This is 
no definition of the word at all. It is a theological 
notion, annexed to the word by a certain class of 
Christians. It is amazing that such a sentiment as 
this should be laid before us, as having any thing to 
do with a definition of the word baptize. Among the 
ancients of difierent ages, baptism had various names 
of dignity, according to prevailing notions. They 
are enumerated in the Encyclopedia Britannica, as 
well as in other works. Baptism was called palinge- 
nesia, or laver of regeneration ; it was called life^ 
salvation^ the seal of God^ the seal of faith^ mystery ^ 
sacrament^ the gift of the Lord^ consecration^ consum- 
mation^ initiation^ and viaticum from its being ad- 
ministered to departing persons. It was called, too, 
the sacrainent of faith ^ the gj^eat circumcision^ and 
purification^ which last is the favorite name with 
President Beecher. But none of these names contain 
a definition of the word. Each one, in fact, is an 
eulogy on the ordinance. It would be as easy to 
show from "ecclesiastical usage," that baptism 
means "regeneration," or "salvation," as that it 
means purification. In the writings of the fathers, it 
is often interchanged with regeneration ; the one is 
substituted for ihe other. If President Beecher can 
maintain his position in regard to purification^ more 
strongly still can the Papist maintain his in regard 
to baptismal regeneration. The arguments of either 
one are as good as those of the other. They are 
intimately connected ; and he who takes one, will be 
logically and morally bound to take both. 

In closing his letter. President Beecher alludes to 
the assertion which I made, that on this question, 



128 

the Baptists have the learning of modern Europe on 
their side. He says, that even if he admitted the 
truth of this claim, he would reply, "Before their 
TRIBUNAL I refuse TO STAND." This seuteuce deserves 
to be remembered. Even if President Beecher were 
forced to own that all the learning of modern Europe 
is against him, although it be on a question which 
turns on the meaning of a word, still would he not 
relinquish his ground. The ground which he occu- 
pies is certainly very high, if all the learning of 
modern Europe cannot reach it. 

But to whom does he appeal ? At whose judg- 
ment-seat will he stand? He appeals to the Greek 
fathers, — the men who wrote Greek, to whom the 
language was vernacular. But the modern Greeks 
read their books as easily as we read English, and 
with one voice, declare that the fathers understood 
the word baptize to mean immerse. Before their 
tribunal, Prof. Stuart has stood; and what verdict 
did he bring away? He says, speaking of immer- 
sion, that the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who 
were familiar with the Greek, understood this to be 
the m,eaning, the usual import of baptizo, " would 
hardly seem, capable of denial.''^ ^ Yet, after this, 
their decision, announced by the more aged profes- 
sor, we behold President Beecher, a younger man, 
going into their court, and, as if they had never said 
a word, appealing to them with the question, Does 
not baptize mean to purify ? We are well aware, 
that some of the most learned and judicious men of 
President Beecher's denomination smile kindly at his 
generous enthusiasm in defence of their cause, and 
frankly aver that he cannot succeed in sustaining his 
peculiar theory. 

Having thus noticed the various statements of the 
letter, the reader will observe my entire 

* Biblical Repository, Vol. Ill, p. 362. 



129 

COMPLIANCE WITH MESSES. COOKE & TOWNEES REQUEST. 

In regard to the letter, they say, '^ the examples 
cited are decisive. We call the attention of Mr. 
Hague to them particularly." I have bestowed the 
attention which they demanded. And now 1 call on 
them to sa}^, whether they will admit that their 
friend, on whom they called for aid, has not correctly 
represented the meaning of Clement in regard to the 
Jews bei7ig often baptized on their beds, or whether 
they will assert that Archbishop Potter, the author 
of the Greek Archaeology, and the editor of Clement's 
works, together with those Italian scholars who re- 
published his edition of Clement in Yenice, were 
quite unable to translate the sentence, and, of course, 
quite unfortunate in not having been able to derive 
some Hght from Illinois 1 I have quoted a note of 
that learned editor, containing a positive denial that 
the sentence in Clement can have such a sense as 
President Beecher attributes to it. Again, will they 
continue to insist that the poet Apollonius declares 
that Medea baptized the huge serpent ; or will they 
admit the version which says she dipped the bough, 
and sprinkled the dragon with it ; a version which 
is sustained by the highest authorities, which an 
unlearned reader can see is by far the most natural, 
and which contains internal evidence of being true? 
We shall see how they will pass this trial of their 
candor. 

In justice to President Beecher, however, it ought 
to be said, that he is more clear in the statement of 
his principles, and more consistent in his reasonings, 
than Messrs. Cooke and Towne. They assert that 
the word baptize means to sprinkle. He denies that 
it denotes any specific act. They take first one 
meaning, and then another, just as it suits them. 
He denies that this can be properly done. He says 
(Bib. Repos., 2d series, p. 42, Jan., 1840), '' If we 
adopt the generic meaning, purify or cleanse, we 



130 

must adhere to it at all times, when speaking of the 
rite. On the other hand, if we adopt a specific 
meaning, as immerse, or sprinkle, we must adhere 
to it in the same way, and not pass from the generic 
to the specific, or from the specific to the generic, 
according to the exigencies, on the ground that the 
word baptizo may, in the whole circuit of its use, 
mean sometimes one thing and sometimes another. 
Nor must we adopt both ; for however numerous the 
possible meanings of a word may be in its various 
usages, it has in each particular case but one mean- 
ing, and in all similar cases its meaning is the same. 
Hence, the word baptizo, as applied to a given rite, 
has not two or many meanings, but one, and to that 
one, we should in all cases adhere." 

We deem these principles to be just. And if they 
are, they cut up by the roots the doctrines of Messrs. 
Cooke and Towne, touching the various meanings of 
the word. And as to President Beecher himself, if 
he fails to prove that the word means simply and 
properly to purify, they leave him no ground on 
which to stand for the defence of different modes of 
baptism. 

In regard to President Beecher' s attempt to show 
that the word baptize means to purify, I have said, 
that by the same process the Catholics might prove 
that it means to regenerate ; and in my former reply 
to the reasonings of Messrs. Cooke and Towne, p. 19, 
I had occasion to notice the 

SIMILARITY OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR UNIVERSALISM AND 
SPRINKLING. 

I would again refer the reader to that paragraph. 
As to the word aionioii, eternal, on which the discus- 
sion with Universalists generally turns, they speak 
of its great variety of meanings, and of its uncertain- 
ty. Just so my reviewers speak of the word baptizo. 
On page 122 of the Rejoinder, they ask if I have 
"seen no successful arguments against Universalists 



131 

by Pedobaptist writers?" I answer that I have; 
but not exactly on the philological principles of our 
authors. Did Prof. Stuart, in his discussion of that 
subject, admit that eternal was not the native and 
proper meaning of aionios ? Or, admitting that it 
had been, did he allow that this meaning had ever 
been "merged and lost?" Not at all. He declares 
that when aionios is used to denote something of 
limited duration, it is used catachrestically . And 
with rhetoricians, what is a catachresis 7 It is de- 
fined, " a harsh trope, by which a word is forced into 
an application contrary to its p?^oper meaning." An 
instance of this is found, in applying the word ever- 
lasting to any thing temporary, as in the conversa- 
tional phrase, everlasting talker, everlasting plague, 
&c. Does Prof. Stuart allow the Universalists to get 
off by saying that this distinction is of no importance, 
and that "other meanings are other meanings, come 
from what source they may ? " No. He holds them 
to the proper meaning of the word, as well when it 
is applied to future misery, as to future happiness. 
The word Gehenna, too, was primarily the name of 
a place in Judea, known as a scene of gloom and 
wretchedness. It was transferred, as a proper name, 
to a place of gloom and wretchedness in the invisi- 
ble world ; but its primary meaning modifies and 
limits its application, or else it might be given as a 
proper name to heaven as well as to hell, — to a scene 
of happiness as well as of misery. Let it be admitted, 
that the primary meanings of these words have been 
"merged and lost," and their real sense may be 
easily hidden in a mist of uncertainty, 

BAPTISM OF BEDS. 

It is said by President Beecher, in his letter, p. 117, 
"Our credulity has been sorely taxed to believe that 
couch'es were habitually immersed by the Jews." 
Yet it is asserted in Mark 7: 4, that the Pharisees 
baptized cups, pots, brazen vessels, and couches. 



132 

(This last word is rendered tables^ in our version.) 
Now, why should it be deemed incredible, that they 
immersed these things, considering the superstitious 
character of the men 7 Did not our Saviour rebuke 
them for their proneness to go beyond the law of 
observances? Would they not "strain at a gnat 
and swallow a camel?" They could do many 
things which would seem hard to others. Our au- 
thors speak of them as if they were reasonable men ; 
but Mark represents them as being just the reverse. 
He speaks of them as very superstitious, as following 
tradition instead of the Bible ; but when he gives the 
facts which sustain his assertion, shall we say, they 
tax our credulity ? Why, if there was nothing mar- 
vellous about them, they would never have been 
mentioned for such a purpose. 

In my Review, I quoted from the celebrated Rabbi 
Maimonides, the rule which required them to im- 
merse their couches. This is proof. My reviewers 
do not attempt to invalidate it. There stands the 
rule, which requires the Jew to immerse his couch, 
" part by part." Why do they not meet it fairly ? 
They ought to disprove it, or else concede the argu- 
ment. 

I referred to Calmet, to show the possibility of im- 
mersing couches, but my reviewers say, they can 
find nothing to the point. I had in my mind such 
expressions as these, which the reader may find in 
Calmet. " The word Bed, is in many cases calcu- 
lated to mislead and perplex the reader. The beds 
in the East are very different from those used in 
this part of the world, and our attention to this, is 
indispensable to the right apprehension of several 
passages of Holy Writ." — He adds, that frequently 
the bed spoken of in the Bible, is nothing more than 
"a cotton quilt folded double." He quotes from 
Psalms the sentence, "I make my bed to swim^ and 
water my couch with tears," to show, that a Jewish 
couch might be so hard that tears would ''run over 
it." It occurred to me, that these facts might tend to 



133 

remove any difficulties which might arise from one's 
associating the term bed with such structures as bear 
that name amongst us. But as our authors cannot 
see how they bear upon the point, I must commend 
them to the judgment of the candid reader. Let 
him remember that my reviewers concede, that bap> 
tize often means immerse ; and as to its meaning in 
this passage, let him connect with it the fact that 
these articles were immersed. I ask again, which 
are the clearer lights ; such authorities as these, or 
the assertions of my reviewers. 

John's baptism. 
In their ''Hints," Messrs. Cooke and Towne have 
expressed their belief, that for John to have immersed 
all those to w4iom he administered bapiism, would 
have been an impossibility, because it would have 
required more time and strength than he possessed. 
They suppose that John baptized half a million. 
This calculation I treated as a mere guess. They 
seem to think it unreasonable, that I should not re- 
gard it as a thing proved. They found it upon the 
expression, "then went out to him Jerusalem, and 
all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, 
and were baptized of him." That people crowded 
to him from all these parts, we readily admit ; but it 
can be easily shown, that John did not baptize 
even a majority of the converts. For, 1st, we 
are expressly told, that Jesus "made and baptized 
MORE DISCIPLES THAN JoHN ;"^ and, 2dly, we kno'w 
that the great proportion of the higher classes were 
baptized by neither. The Pharisees and lawyers 
rejected John,f and of Jesus it was asked long after- 
ward, " Have any of the rulers or Pharisees believed 
on him?" The expression touching Jerusalem going 
out to the wilderness, is a general one, denoting 
many from the various classes of society. Some 
went merely to see ; others who asked for baptism 
were denied. J Moreover, the^ public ministry of Je- 

* John 4: 1. f Luke 7: 30. : Malt. 3: 7. 

12 



134 

sus was twice as long as that of John ; and if, m the 
space of time allotted to him, John baptized half a 
milUon^ and Jesus made disciples in a still more rapid 
ratio, then at the time of Christ's death there must 
have been not far from three millions of persons who 
had embraced his religion in that little land of Pales- 
tine. What a new idea is this ! Surely, it could not 
have been said with much propriety, " Who hath 
believed our report?" Nor could the church have 
been called properly " a little flock." Compared with 
such an increase, the triumphs of the apostles could 
not have seemed very marvellous, nor the descent of 
the promised Spirit so very marked as is generally 
believed. But the fact is clear that this calculation 
is a very hasty assumption. 

Our authors speak of my treating their remarks 
touching the phrase "Much water," in John 3: 23, 
with ridicule. They were dissatisfied with our 
English version, and said, that in the original the 
phrase is tioUu la vdaru^ many waters — denoting little 
rivulets. I answered this by saying that in Rev. 14: 
2, the same phrase is used to designate the ocean. 
This was "no sneer," but an argument. I still deem 
it a sound one. I see no reason to be dissatisfied with 
our English translation, which denotes abundance of 
water. 

BAPTISM OF CHRIST. 

The learned Dr. Whitby of the church of England, 
in his commentary on the narration of Christ's bap- 
tism in Matt. 3, speaks of the decisive voice of the 
Greeks on the import of baptism, quotes the Jewish 
rule on the subject, and declares that a doubt whether 
John immersed Jesus, must arise from ignorance. 
As Whitby was a Pedobaptist, one of the most emi- 
nent of his age for biblical knowledge, and quoted by 
succeeding writers on almost every theological topic, 
I may be allowed to ask for his plain statement a 
candid consideration. The copy of his work which 
I have used, belongs to the Boston Athenoeum, and 
is in two quarto volumes. 



135 

In their " Hints," onr authors stated that Christ 
was baptized as a priest, — that his baptism was his 
legal initiation into the office. In answer to this, I 
said, that the requisitions of the Mosaic law could 
not apply to the priesthood of Christ, ''for it is evi- 
dent " (says Paul, Heb. 7: 14) "that our Lord sprang 
out of Juda ; of which tribe Moses spake nothing 
■ concerning priesthood." My opponents ask, whether 
I have " thus penned a denial of the priesthood of 
Christ," and speak of the influence of " German 
writers," in a case where there was no occasion to 
allude to them. I have no idea, however, that they 
have any real donbts of my orthodoxy on this point. 
The question is asked only for effect. My argument 
on this point is very brief. I will just state it and 
leave it. 1. The rites of initiation into the priest- 
hood were enjoined by the Mosaic law ; 2. But in 
the tribe to which our Lord belonged, that law recog- 
nized no priesthood. 3. Therefore Christ's baptism 
could not have been a legal initiation into the priest- 
hood. 

BAPTISPvI OF THE THREE THOUSAND. 

In their first work, Messrs. Cooke and Towne stated 
their belief, that the three thousand converts on the 
day of Pentecost could not have been immersed in 
Jerusalem, for the want of water. "The brook Ce- 
dron was dry, and no suitable place could be found." 
On page 30 of my Review, I expressed my astonish- 
ment that they should speak thus, since the publica- 
tion of Dr. Robinson's work on Palestine, in which 
the vast extent of reservoirs and pools is amply ex- 
hibited, and where it is stated that never, even in a 
siege, was there "a want of water within the city," 
What do they reply to this ? That "water in ivells 
might answer all the purposes of standing a siege, 
and yet not be very convenient for immersing." But 
let it be observed. Dr. Robinson does not say that the 
water chiefly was in ivells^ but just the contrary. 
Have the gentlemen, even yet, not looked at Dr. 



136 

Robinson's statements ? The city now abounds in 
relics of fountains, cisterns, pools, baths, reservoirs, 
basins, and conduits, which indicate an abundance 
of water, and great facilities for adapting its flow or 
confinement to every imaginable purpose. 

In connection with remarks on the baptism of the 
three thousand, I stated that Chrysostom of Constan- 
tinople, immersed in one day, 3000 catechumens, 
young persons who had been instructed in Christian- 
ity, and that in doing it he had none to assist him 
but the clergy of his own church. The gentlemen 
say, that 1 give them " no authority for so incredible 
a fact.'' ^ Here then is the authority, — Chrysostom 
himself He says, that " the emperor was affected 
at the sight of the newly-baptized, for they were 
about three thousand^ See his Ep. ad Innocent, vol. 
iii, p. 518.^ — Neander's Life of Chrysostom, vol. ii, p. 
225. Could we have better authority for this histor- 
ical fact which occurred on the great Sabbath, April 
16th, 404. That these were immersed there can be 
no doubt, for Chrysostom calls baptism a " plunging 
into the water and raising out of it," and is quoted 
by Prof Stuart in the Biblical Repository (vol. iii, p. 
358), as expressing his idea in the following sen- 
tence : " We as in a sepulchre, immersing our heads 
in water, the old man is buried, and, sinking down., 
the whole is concealed at once; then, as we emerge, 
the new man again rises." (Chrysostom in cap. iii, 
Johannis.) Moreover, Chrysostom, in the case be- 
fore us, speaks of the baptisteries ; («t yoXvuSr^dgai-^) 
and we know that the grand baptistery of the church 
of St. Sophia, built in the age of Constantine, was a 
spacious and splendid work. 

Here, then, is a well attested fact, that 3000 were 
immersed in one day at one place, for it is said, that 
they were assembled on the preceding evening, and 
were ready, waiting the approach of the appointed 
day, according to the custom of those times. Here is 



137 

a DECISIVE FACT ; ]et it be considered, I would ask my 
reviewers if Chrysostom of old, and Neander of 
modern times, may be relied on as good historical 
authorities ? 

BAPTISM OF THE ETHIOPIAN. 

' Our authors continue to insist that the Ethiopian 
must have read something about sprinkling in the 
prophet Isaiah, chap. 52, although there is no reason 
to doubt, that he was reading the Septuagint version, 
from which Luke draws his quotation, and in which 
that verb is rendered astonish. This I mentioned in 
my Review, p. 32. Without protracting debate on 
this point, I will only cite a remark from Dr. Baknes's 
notes on Isaiah, which applies to the case. It is a 
comment on the passage in question. He says, " It 
may be remarked, that whichever of the above senses 
is assigned, it furnishes no argument for the practice 
of sprinkling in baptism. It refers to the fact of his 
purifying or cleansing the nations, and not to the 
ordinance of Christian baptism. Nor should it be 
used as an argument i?i reference to the mode in 
which that should he administered.^^ 

BAPTISM AND THE LORd's SUPPER. 

The question is sometimes asked, why is it that 
the Baptists insist so strongly on the primitive mode 
of baptism, but not on the necessity of celebrating 
the Lord's Supper, in the manner of Christ and the 
apostles. It is said, that they celebrated it at evening, 
in an upper room, reclining at their table ; and why 
should we not with equal reason urge conformity to 
their example in these particulars? I ansv/er, these 
particulars are not mentioned in the law. The 
Christian dispensation has but two rites; and the 
acts essential to these, are involved in precisely three 
ENACTING TERMS — Immerse, Eat, Drink. Thcsc words 
are words of command ; they are in the imperative 
mood. Here is the Christian ritual. We have no 
more right to alter one part than we have to obliterate 
the whole. To do either, is to act on a principle 
12# 



138 

which, if followed out, would subvert the authority 
of Christ as a legislator. When we shall stand in 
his holy presence, and our past life shall be reviewed, 
we shall doubtless feel it to have been a serious 
business, to interpret to others the meaning of those 
words which express the specij&c actions enjoined by 
him on every believer. 

HOW SPRINKLING CAME TO BE CALLED BAPTISM. 

It is an historical fact, and worthy to be remem- 
bered on account of its bearings in this discussion, 
that sprinkling came to be called baptism, not on 
philological grounds, not in view of the meaning of 
the words, but on the ground of church authority. 
A power arose in Christendom, which, after corrupt- 
ing Christian doctrines, began to ''think to change 
times and laws." Having made baptism essential 
to salvation, it mercifully decreed that if an unbap- 
tized person could not be removed from his bed, the 
application of water to him in the bed should be 
considered as baptism; but only in this case of 
necessity* As sprinkling afterwards became more 
common, arguments in favor of calling it baptism, 
began to be urged from certain figurative uses of the 
latter term. The fallacy of these arguments has 
been shown ; prevailing custom gave them currency 
in Europe, and reverence for custom has given them 
influence in this country. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM FIGURES. 

The most curious instances of endeavoring to 
establish the proper meaning of a word from its 
figurative ttses, embrace the word bapto, not baptizo: 
and of these, the strangest, is that one cited from 
Homer's poem, entitled "The Battle of the Frogs 
and Mice." The whole poem is hyperbolical, 
abounding in the boldest exaggeration. Fifteen of 
the mice, and eighteen of the frogs, have names given 
to them as leading combatants. Jupiter calls a 
council of the frogs, to arrest the conflict, and when 

* See page 114. 



139 

lie interposes by his thunder, the earth quakes from 
pole to pole. Pope's translation gives us the spirit of 
the poem, in those lines where Jupiter cries, 

What seas of blood I view, what worlds of slain; 
An Iliad rising from a day's campaign! 

Well, to show what an awful event was the death 
of one of the heroes, a fighting frog named Cram- 
bophagus, Homer tells us that the lake was dyed 
with his blood. The idea which the spirit of the 
piece presents to the view, is that of a lake appearing 
as if it had been turned into blood, or covered with 
it. To form an hyperbole for the occasion. Homer 
seizes a word used to denote the dyeing of any thing 
by covering it with a liquid. Such a word was 
bapto, which, if it meant to sprinkle, would have 
made no hyperbole, and would not have suited his 
purpose. If from this figure of Homer, it follows 
that bapto means to sprinkle, it would follow from 
the poet Cowley's hyperbole, that to drown means 
merely to tvet, for he says of Goliath, that he lay 
"drowned in his own blood." If such principles of 
reasoning were admitted, language would fail to 
convey any ideas with certainty. 

BRIEF SUMMARY. 

In order to come to a just conclusion touching a 
discussion, it is necessary to keep clearly in mind 
the main points on which it must turn. In the pres- 
ent case, these points are comprised in a few facts 
and PRINCIPLES. 

One great fact is this, that in the first ages of 
Christianity, immersion prevailed throughout the 
world. — See pp. 58, 114, &c. The ancient baptisteries 
of Europe still stand as proofs of this. 

Another great fact is, that the first deviations 
from this rule were allowed in behalf of those who 
were confined to beds of sickness, and were called 
clinic baptisms. The superstitious notion that the 
outward rite was of saving efiicacy, introduced these 
exceptions. — See p. 114, and "the articles there refer- 
red to. 



140 

The third great fact is, that when, at the time of 
the Reformation, the church emerged from papal 
darkness, the leading Reformers acknowledged that 
immersion was the proper meaning of the word bap- 
tism — the undoubted practice of the primitive church. 
On this point, the testimony of Luther, for instance, 
is quite decisive. On no subject, am I able to cite 
proofs more clear.— See pp. 23', 24, 25, 100, 1 10. In 
the preceding pages I have said nothing of Melanc- 
THON, who seems to have felt more deeply on this 
subject than the rest, and perceiving the Reformers' 
lack of consistency, confessed that here was the 
''weak point" of Protestantism. The Elector of 
Saxony, for the sake of peace, dissuaded them from 
the full discussion of the subject.^ It is 2. fact of 
great importance, that in this respect, the Reformers 
themselves confessed that the Reformation was im- 
perfect. I say, if this be proved to be a fact, it is a 
momentous one, and ought to have great weight in 
this free country, in determining the controvery. Is 

it not PROVED? 

A fourth great fact is, that in the German Bible, 
the word baptize, was translated by a word denoting 
immersion. That word is taufen. See Luther's 
testimony upon it, p. 25. 

A fifth great fact is, that the leading scholars 
whom the Reformation produced, followed Luther 
with their testimonies to the true import of the word. 
See the concessions of Beza, Casaubon and Witsius, 
in their criticisms on the Sybilline verse, pp. 15, 16. 
Also that of Turretin, on the same passage, pp. 13 — 
15, 21, 22. To these many more might be added. 

A sixth great fact is, that the leading writers of 
the Greeks and Latins, men who had nothing to do 
with the Protestant Reformation, unite in their tes- 
timonies to the same point. 

A seventh great fact is, that the Romish writers 
use the same kind of reasoning, to defend their doc- 
trine and the sacrifices of the mass, as the advocates 

* For proof of this latter fact, my limits will allow me only to refer the reader 
to my Historical Discoursej Providence, 1839, pp. 63, 173. 



141 

of sprinkling use to defend that ceremony. See pp. 
66 — TO. To this may be added the fact, that the 
Catholics have always warded off the arguments of 
the Protestants against the changes made by the 
Papal church in the administration of the Lord's 
Supper, by the retort, that the church has as much 
authority to change one ordinance as the other. 
See Bossuet's Tract on Communion in both kinds. 

All these are real facts.^ or they are not. If they 
are, they will be decisive with a consistent Protes- 
tant. And my most earnest assertion is, that no 
man can invaUdate the testimony to their reality, 
without subverting the foundation of all historical 
evidence, and thus opening the way for a palsying 
skepticism touching the groimds of belief, and the 
certainty of all knowledge. 

Admitting the Bible to be the true standard of faith 
and practice, the great principles on which this 
discussion turns are these, — 

1. In the baptismal law — that is, in the Great 
Commission, the enacting term, is not used in any 
figurative sense, but has its proper meaning — the 
same as have the enacting terms eat and drink in 
the command to observe the Eucharist, the only 
other Christian rite enjoined on us. 

The second great principle is, that where we have 
an explicit and universal law, enjoining a positive 
institution, the church has no right to take unto 
herself the authority, to affix to the terms of that law 
any new or modern meaning, nor to alter the rite 
itself, for reasons derived from expediency, instruc- 
tiveness, convenience, or any other ground. 

If these principles are acknowledged to be true, 
then the cause which I advocate is established. If 
they are not true, then I know not where to find 
firm footing in order to stem the floods of skeptical 
and papal errors which are ever raging around us, 
and which will surely prevail against us, if we leave 
any " weak point" exposed to their power. 



142 

CONCLUSIOxN. 

Ill closing my Examination of the Rejoinder, i 
would now commend the suggestions which it con- 
tains, to the calm and prayerful consideration of the .; 
reader. Let him remember, that, although the ob- ' 
servance of an outward rite has not in itself any 
saving efficacy, it does not thence follow that it is of 
little importance. A few words from Dr. Barnes, in 
his commentary on Mark 16 : 16, is quite to the 
point in this place. He says, " It is worthy of remark, 
that Jesus has made baptism of so much importance. 
He did not say, indeed, that a man coidd not be 
saved without baptism, but he has strongly implied 
that if this is neglected, knoiving it to be a command of 
the Saviour^ it endangers the salvation of the soul. 
Faith and baptism are the beginnings of a Christian 
life; the one, the beginning of piety in the soul, the 
other, of its manifestation before men, or of a profes- 
sion of religion. And no man can tell how much he 
endangers his eternal interest, by being ashamed of 
Christ before men." To this it may be added, that 
no one can tell the ultimate results upon the church 
herself, of any departure from the institutions of 
Jesus Christ. The grand anti-christian apostasy 
was brought about by slight deviations from apostolic 
practice ; and the principle, that the church has a 
right to alter or dispense with a divine command, is 
a basis strong and broad enough to bear up the 
main pillars of the system of popery. 

The little advance which Protestants have made in 
Europe since the days of Luther, the increasing 
influence of the Romish Church in England and on 
the Continent, and the tendency to Papal doctrines 
throughout the realm of Protestantism, are sufficient 
to suggest the inquiry, whether there be not some- 
thing wrong in the constitution of many churches, 
which have, as to cardinal doctrines, a correct 
confession of faith. The decline of piety, years ago, 
among the churches planted by the Puritans in 
Massachusetts, is a moral phenomenon worthy of 
study. What an instructive fact is that which 



143 

occurs in the history of President Edwards — the 
dissohUion of his pastoral relation to his church in 
New England. How remarkable, that even he, 
whose mental powers so far transcended those of 
other men, and whose piety was commensurate with 
his intellect, could not urge the Christian rule, that 
none should partake at the Lord's table except those 
who gave evidence of a change of heart, without 
loosening the bonds which united him to his people ! 
Time was, when even in Boston, the spiritual 
doctrines of the Puritans were scarcely heard at all, 
except from a Baptist pulpit, then occupied by the 
venerable Dr. Stillman, on whose lips, for more than 
a quarter of a century, crowds habitually hung with 
delight and profit. This fact was once candidly 
recognized by Rev. Dr. Lyman Beecher, ' when 
addressing the church to which Stillman once 
ministered. Said he, "your lamp was burning 
when ours had gone out." Great as was the per- 
sonal piety of the Puritans, and of many of their 
successors, the constitution of their churches was not 
adapted to preserve the purity of their doctrines. 

And let it be asked, what can be better fitted to 
secularize the church, and ultimately to embarrass 
her progress, than the operation of the principle that 
an infant comes into the church as well as into the 
state by virtue of its natural birth; and, as in the 
latter case, it is entitled to the privileges of citizen- 
ship, so, in the former, it is entitled to the sealing rite 
of baptism. Such a principle must be corrupting, 
and where its deleterious results are not seen in the 
general condition of the church, it may be for want 
of time fully tg develop them, or because its legiti- 
mate tendencies are mercifully arrested by the 
providence of God, or the gracious influences of his 
Holy Spirit. Deeply was 1 once affected by this 
thought, when a missionary of the Presbyterian 
church, who has for years been laboring in Europe, 
frankly confessed to me, that he wished the nation 
to whom he had been sent, knew nothing of infant 
baptism, because then, he might have a closer access 



144 

to their consciences, and by rousing in their bosoms 
a sense of sin, might lead them to embrace the gospel. 

But while I speak thus of the tendency of a 
constitution and the effects of a system, I rejoice to 
know that there are so many in the various denomi- 
nations of Christendom whom I can hail as fellow- 
disciples, and with whom I can cherish spiritual 
communion. Yes.even among the Catholics, who have 
changed both the ordinances of Christ, and among 
the Quakers, who have extirpated both, I have met 
with those who hold the Head, Jesus Christ, and who 
seem to be acting "according to their light." The 
first of these sects inculcate a gorgeous and unau- 
thorized system of rites, and the other have no rites 
at all ; yet among them both, I have known those 
whom I hold as Christians, and hope to meet in 
heaven. Their peculiar systems, I must oppose — 
the arguments for them I would fain refute, and the 
effects of them I deplore ; but as to themselves per- 
sonally, if they honor the cross of Christ, cherish his 
spirit, and love him as a Saviour, I would esteem 
them as brethren, honor them for their virtues, and 
rejoice that, in any respect, they are "fellow-helpers 
to the truth." 

Still, while I hold my heart and mind open to a 
just appreciation of all that is good in those who 
differ from me, and say with Paul, " as far as we 
have attained, let us walk by the same rule, and 
mind the same thing," my desire is, that the day 
may soon come, when the principle, that the Bible 
is the only rule of a Christian's faith, shall be exalted 
to a practical supremacy throughout Christendom, — 
when in regard to baptism, the simple 9bject of each 
inquirer will be to know what the Saviour meant by 
the command contained in his Great Commission^ 
and when, in the spirit of universal obedience, the 
united church, bowing at the feet of Jesus, shall say. 

Our gracious God, how plain 
Are thy directions given! 

"thy word giveth hght, it giveth understanding to 
the simple." 



baluabic iUorks, 

PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY 

GOULD, KENDALL AND LINCOLN, 

PUBLISHERS, BOOKSELLERS, AND STATIONERS, 

59 WASHINGTON STREET. 

IB © i IP © If o 



THE 

ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 

By Francis Wayland,. D. D., President of Brown University. 

SIXTH EDITION. 



THE ELEMENTS OF 

POLITICAL ECONOMY, ABRIDGED. 

ADAPTED TO THE USE OF SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES. 

The success which has attended the abridgment of the " The Elements of 
Moral Science," has induced the author to prepare the folloicing abridgment 
of " The Elements of Political Economy." In this case, as in the other, the 
work has been wholly re-written, and an attempt has been made to adapt it to 
the attainments of youth. 

"The original work of the author, on Political Economy, has already been 
noticed on our pages; and the present abridgment stands in no need of a recom- 
mendation from us. We may be permitted, however, to say, that both the rising 
and risen generations are deeply indebted to Dr. Wayland, for the skill and power 
he has put forth to bring a highly important subject distinctly before them,within 
such narrow limits. Though "abridged for the use of academies," it deserves to 
be introduced into every private family, and to be studied by every man who has an 
interest in the wealth and prosperity of his country. It is a subject little under- 
stood, even practically, by thousands, and still less understood theoretically. It 
is to be hoped, this will form a class book, and be faithfully studied in our acade- 
mies; and that it will find its way into every family library; not there to be shut 
up unread, but to afford rich material for thought and discussion in the family 
circle. It is fitted to enlarge the mind, to purify the judgment, to correct erro- 
neous popular impressions, and assist every man in forming opinions of public 
measures, which will abide the test of time and experience." — Boston Recorder. 

"An abridgment of this clear, common sense work, designed for the use of 
academies, is just published. We rejoice to see such treatises spreading among 
the people: and we urge all who would be intelligent freemen, to read them." — 
New York Transcript. 

"We can say, with safety, that the topics are well selected and arranged; that 
the author's name is a guarantee for more than usual excellence. We wish it an 
extensive circulation." — Neic York Observer. 

"It is well adapted to high schools, and embraces the soundest system of 
republican Political Economy of any treatise Qxtanl." — Daily Advertiser, 



ELEMENTS OE MORAL SCIENCE, 

BY FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D. 

President of Brown University, and Professor of Moral Philosophy. 

Twenhj-First Thousand. 

SC^This work has been extensively and favorably reviewed in the leading 
periodicals of the day, and has already been adopted as a class-book in most of 
the collegiate, theological, and academical institutions of the country. 

" The work of Dr. Wayland has arisen gradually from the necessity of correcting 
the false principles and fallacious reasonmgs of Paley. It is a radical mistake, in 
the education of youth, to permit any book to be used by students as a lext-book, 
which contain erroneous doctrines, especially when these are fundamental, and 
tend to vitiate the whole system of morals. We have been greatly pleased with 
the method which Pres. Wayland has adopted: he goes back to the simplest and 
most fundamental principles; and, in the statement of his views, he unites per- 
spicuity with conciseness and preci.=5ion. In all the author's^ leading fundamental 
principles we entirely concur." — Bib. Rep. and Theol. Review. 

From Rev. Wilbur Fisk, Pres. of the Wesleyan University. 

"I have examined it with great satisfaction and interest. The work was 
greatly needed, and is well executed. Dr. Wayland deserves the grateful 
acknowledgments and liberal patronage of the public. I need say nothing 
further to express my high estimate of the work, than that we shall immediately 
adopt it as a text-book in our university." 

From Hon. James Kent, late Chancellor of the State of New York. 

"The work has been read by me attentively and thoroughly, and I think very 
highly of it. The author himself is one of tiie most estimable of men, and I do 
not know of any ethical treatise, in which our duties to God, and to our fellow- 
men, are laid down with more precision, sim.plicity, clearness, enerey, and 
truth." 

THE ELEMENTS OF 

MORAL SCIENCE, ABRIDGED. , 

ADAPTED TO THE USE OF SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES. | 

Seventeenth Thousand. 

II^=The attention of Teachers and School Committees is invited to this 
valuable work. It has received the unqualified approbation of all who have 
examined it; and it is believed to be admirably adapted to exert a wholesome 
influence on the minds of the young, and lead to the formation of correct moral 
principles. 

" Dr. Wayland has published an abridgment of his work for the use of schools. 
Of this step we can hardly speak too highly. It is more than time that the study 
of Moral Philosophy shsuld be introduced into all our institutions of education. 
We are happy to see the way so auspiciously opened for such an introduction. 
It has been "not merely abridged, but also re-written." We cannot but regard 
the labor as all well bestowed. The difficulty of choosin? words and examples so 
as to make them intelligible and interesting to the child, is very great. The 
success with which Dr. Wayland appears to have overcome it, is, in the highest 
degree, gratifying." — North American Review. 

THOUGHTS 

ON THE PRESENT COLLEGIATE SYSTEM IN THE U. S. 

By Francis Wayland, D. D. 

"These Thoughts come from a source entitled tovery rei?pectful attention; and 
as the author goes over the whole ground of collegiate education, criticising freely 
all the arrangements in every department and in all their bearings, the book is 
rery full of matter. We hope it will prove the beginningof a thorough discussion. 
It IS a noticeable fact, that none, or next to none, of the reforms tliat have been 
attempted in some of our colleges within fifteen or twenty years, have succeeded. 

i.u PVbi"^"lind is not very easy on the subject ; Dr. Wayland is not satisfied : 
ana the mmds of other gentlemen similarly situated, are in like position." 



PALEY'S NATURAL THEOLOGY, 

Illustrated by forty Plates, and Selections from the Notes of Dr. Paxton; 

"With additional Notes, original and selected, for this edition; 

With a Vocabulary of Scientific terms. 

Edited by John Ware, M. P. 

D3='Thi3 work is the Text -Book in most of the Colleges throughout the country. 

"The work before us is one which deserves rather to be studied, than merely 
read. Indeed, without diligent attention and study, neither the excellences of it 
can be fully di^^covered, nor its ad\'antages realized. It is therefore gratifying to 
find it introduced, as a text-book, into the colleges and literary institutions of our 
country. Tiie edition before us is superior to any we have seen, and, we believe, 
superior to any that has yet been published." — Spirit of the Pilgrims. 

" Perhaps no one of our author's works gives greater satisfaction to all classes of 
readers, the young, and the old, the ignorant, and the enlightened. Indeed, we 
recollect no book in which the arguments for the existence and attributes of the 
Supreme Being, to be drawn from his works, are exhibited in a manner more at- 
tractive and more convincing." — Christian Examiner. 

" We hail the appearance of Paley's Theology with unfeigned pleasure. No man 
is an atheist after reading the work. Infidelity changes its character, and becomes 
downright and wilful opposition to the truth, after it has gone over the pages be- 
fore us. We recommend to all young men who may see this article, to procure a 
copy of it forthwith; we advise parents to procure it for their sons and for their 
daughters." — Trumpet. 

THE 

CLASS BOOK OF NATURAL THEOLOGY; 

Or, the Testimony of Nature to the Being, Perfections, and Government of God. 
By Rev. Henry Fergus. Revised, enlarged, and adapted to Paxton's 
Illustrations; with Notes, selected and original, Biographi- 
cal Notices, and a Vocabulary of Scientific Terms. 
By the Rev. Charles Henry Alden, A. M., 
Principal of the Philadelphia High School 
for Young Ladies. Third edition. 
" We are glad to sea this work of Fergus brought before the public with advan- 
tages likely to engage attention, and sure to i)romote its usefulness. We are es- 
pecially pleased, that this has been done by one whose reputation and devotion in 
the cause of female education will be a sufficient recommendation of it to those 
whom it seems to have been his particular design to benefit. A growing attention 
to this branch of education, and considerable improvements in it, have of late ap- 
paared. The book, as now presented, is better fitted for a class-book on natural 
theology, than any with which we are acquainted. The style of it is free and easy, 
yet concise, and withal exceedingly chaste and classical, — the production of a well- 
disciplined, well-stored, and pure mind. The author treats of the origin of the 
world, the evidences of design in nature, the perfections of the Deity. These, and 
his various topics, are ilkist rated by Paxton's admirable plates, heretofore published 
in connection with Dr. Paley's work on the same subject. These, together with 
the notes and explanations of the American editor, are important additions, and 
contain much valuable information. Besides these, there is inserted a lecture by 
Dr. Mitcliell, of Philadelphia, on "the wisdom of God in the formation of water," 
which is consonant with the general spirit of the work, and abounds in wise and 
happy reflections." — Episcopal Recorder. 

'•'The general plan of the work is excellent, and the details, so far as we can 
judge, are good. We take a delight in running our eye over such a work as this ; 
it reconcile's us with our lot, and vindicates "the ways of God to man." It serves 
to awaken curiosity in the young student, to extend and gratify inquiry, and to 
lead him from the ob]ects of creation around him, "to him in whom we live and 
move, and have our'being." It is a most admirable study for schools. ' The 
proper study of mankind is man.'" — U. S. Gazette. 

" We do not hesitate to pronounce the work one of the best class books we have 
examined. It must have an extensive sale." — Journal of Belles Lettres. 
3 . 



EOMAN ANTIQUITIES 

AND ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY. 

By Charles K. Dillaway, A. M., Principal ia the Boston Public Latin School. 
Illustrated by elegant Engravings. Sixth edition, iniproved. 

tt3=*Thi3 work is rapidly coming into use all over our country; it is already in- 
troduced into most of our High Schools and Academies, and many of our Colleges. 
A new and beautiful edition has just been published. 

"In a small duodecimo, of about a hundred and fifty pages, he concentrates the 
most valuable and interesting particulais relating to Roman antiquity ; together 
with as full an account of heathen mythology as fs generally needed in our highest 
seminaries. A peculiar merit of this compilation, and one which will gain it 
admission into our highly res\)cciah\e female seminaries, is the total absence of all 
allusion, even the most remote, to the disgusting obscenities of ancient mythology; 
while, at the same time, nothing is omitted whicli a pure mind would feel interested 
to know. We recommend the book as a valuable addition to the treatises in our 
schools and academies." — Education Reporter, Boston. 

From E. Bailey, Principal of the Young Ladies' High School, Boston. 

"Having used Dillatcay's Roman Antiquities and Ancient Mythology in my 
school for several years. I commend it to teachers, with great confidence, as a valu- 
able text-book on those interesting branches of education. E. Bailey. 

" We well remember, in the days of our pupilage, how unpopular as a study was 
the volume of Roman Antiquities introduced in the academic course. It wearied 
on account of its prolixity, filling a thick octavo, and was the prescribed task each 
afternoon for a long three months. It was reserved for one of our Boston instruc- 
tors to apply the condensing apparatus to this mass of crudities, and so Xo modern- 
ize the antiquities of the old Romans, as to make a befitting abridgiient for schools 
of the first order. Mr. Dillaway has presented such a compilation as must be in- 
teresting to lads, and become popular as a text-book. Historical facts are slaied 
with great simplicity and clearness; the most important points are seized upon, 
while trifling peculiarities are passed unnoticed." — American Traveller. 

YOUNG LADIES' CLASS EOOK; 

A Selection of Lessons for Reading in Prose and Verse. By E. Bailey, A. M., 

Principal of the Young Ladies' High School, Boston. 

Twenty-third Stereotype Edition. 

From the Principals of the Public Schools for Females, Boston. 

" Gentlemen:— We have examined the Young Ladies' Class Book with interest 

and pleasure; with interest, because we have felt the want of a Reading Book 

expressly designed for the use of females; and with pleasure, because we have 

found it well adapted to supply the deficiency. In the selections for a Reader 

designed for boys, the eloquence of the bar, the pulpit, and the forum, may be laid 

under heavy contribution; but such selections, we conceive, are out of place in a 

book designed for females. We have been pleased, therefore, to observe, that in 

the Young Ladies' Class Book such pieces are rare. The high-toned morality, the 

freedom from sectarianism, the taste, richness, and adaptation of the selections', 

added to the neatness of its external appearance, must con^mend it to all; while 

the practical teacher will not fail to observe that diversity of style, together with 

those peculiar points, the want of which, few, who have not felt, know how to 

supply. Respectfully yours, Abraham Andrews, 

Charles Fox, 
Barni'm Field, 
R. G. Parker. 
From the Principal of the 31ount Vernon School, Boston. 
"I have examined with much interest the Young Ladies' Class Book, by Mr. 
Bailey, and have been very highly pleased with its contents. It is my intention to 
introduce it into my own school, as I regard it as not only remarkably well fitted 
to answer its particular object as a book of exercises in the art of elocution, but as 
calculated to have an influence upon the character and conduct, which will be in 
every respect favorable. Jacob Abbott. 

4 



BLAKE'S NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. 

NEW EDITION, ENLARGED. 

Being Conversations on Pliilosophy, with the addition of Explanatory Note*, 

Questions for Examination, and a Dictionary of Philosophical Terms. 

Illustrated with Twenty-eight steel engravings. 

By Rev. J. L. Blake, D. D. 

33=' Perhaps no work has contributed so much as this to excite a fondness for 
the study of Natural Philosophy in youthful minds. The familiar comparisons 
with which it abounds, awaken interest, and rivet the attention of the pupil. It is 
introduced, with great success, into the public schools in Boston. 

From the Rev. J. Adams, Pres. of Charleston College, S. C, 

"I have been highly gratified with the perusal of your edition of Conversations 

on Natural Philosophy. The Questions, Notes, and Explanations of Terms, are 

valuable additions to the v/ork, and make this edition superior to any other with 

which 1 am acquainted. I shall recommend it wherever I have an opportunity." 

'' We avail ourselves of the opportunity furnished us by the publication of a new 
edition of this deservedly popular work, to recommend it, not only to those 
instructors who may not already have adopted it, but also generally to all readers 
who are desirous of obtaining information on the subjects on which it treats. By 
Questions arranged at the bottom of the pages, in which the collateral facts are 
arranged, he directs the attention of the learner to the principal topics. Mr. Blake 
has also added many Notes, which illustrate the passages to which they are 
appended, and the Dictionary of Philosophical Terms is a useful addition.— t/ntVed 
States Literary Gazette. 

BLAKE'S FIRST EOOK IN ASTRONOMY. 

Designed for the Use of Common Schools. By Eev. J. L, Blake, D. D. 
Illustrated by Steel-Plate Engravings. 

From E. Hinckhy, Prof, of Mathematics in the University of Maryland. 

"I am much indebted to you for a copy of llie First Book in Astronomy. It is a 
work of utility and merit, far superior to any other which I have seen. The 
author has selected his topics with great judgment,— arranged them in admirable 
order,— exhibited them in a style and manner at once tasteful and philosophical. 
Nothing seems wanting— nothing redundant. It is truly a very beautiful and 
attractive book, calculated to afford both pleasure and profit to all who may enjoy 
the advantage of perusing it." 

From B. Field, Principal of the Hancock School, Boston. 

" I know of no other work on Astronomy, so well calculated to interest and 
instruct young learners in this sublime science." 

"The illustrations, both pictorial and verbal, are admirably intelligible; and the 
definitions are such as to be easily comprehended by juvenile scholars. The author 
has interwoven with his scientific instructions much interesting historical infor- 
mation, and contrived to dress his philosophy in a garb truly attractive."— iVeto 
York Daily Evening Journal. 

" We are free to say, that it is, in our opinion, decidedly the best work we have 
any knowledge of, on the sublime and interesting subject of Astronomy. The 
engravings are executed in a superior style, and the mechanical appearance of the 
book is extremely prepossessing. The knowledge imparted is in language at once 
chaste, elegant and simple,— adapted to the comprehension of those for whom It 
is desi'^ned. The subject-matter is selected with great judgment, and evinces 
uncommon industry and research. We earnestly hope that parents and teachers 
will examine and judge for themselves, as we feel confident they will coincide with 
us in opinion. We only hope the circulation of the work will be commensurate 
with its merits." — Bostoti Evening Gazette. 

" We do not hesitate to recommend it to the notice of the superintending com- 
mittees, teachers, and pupils of our public sQ\ioo\s."-— State Herald, Portsmouth. 
* 5 



CLASSICAL STUDIES. 

ESSAYS ON ANCIENT LITERATURE AND ART. 
With the Biography and CorresponJence of eminent Philologists. 
By Barnas Sears, President Newton Theol. Institution, 
B.B.Edwards, Prof. Andover Theol. Seminary, and 
C. C. Felton, Prof. Harvard University. 
"This elegant book is worthy of a more extended notice than our limits at present 
will permit^us to give to it. Great labor and care have been bestowed upon iis 
typographical execution, which does honor to the American press. It is one oltlie 
rare beauties of the page, that not a word is divided at the end of a line. The 
mechanical part of the work, however, is its least praise. It is unique in its 
character,— slandin? alone among the innumerable books of this book making age. 
The authors well deserve the thanks of the cultivated and disciplined portion of 
the comnmnity, for the service wmch. by this publication, they have done to the 
cause of letters. Amid the tide of influences which are calculated lo deteriorate 
our litearture, and to degrade the standard of taste and sound learning, we feel 
under great obligations to those who endeavor lo restore the authority of acknow- 
ledged models; to set up barriers against the sweeping flood of a worthless litera- 
ture, which is spreading far and wide its evil results, and concerning wliich our 
chief consolation is, that it is likely to be as transitory as it is deleterious. The 
book is a plea for classical learning. While its fine introduction and some of the 
essays directly avow this design, the correspondence of literary men which it con- 
tains, aims indirectly at the same result. The book is of a high order, and worthy 
of the attentive perusal of every scholar. It is a noble monument to the taste, and 
judgment, and .sound learning of the projectors, and will yield, we doubt not, a 
rich harvest of fame to themselves, and of benefit to the literary interests ol our 
country." — Christian Review. 

"The design of this work is to inculcate a taste for classical studies. Its mate- 
rials are found among the resources of the German and Dutch scholars, who have 
distinguished themselves for their knowledge of the Greek and Roman classics; but 
not the least attractive feature to the general reader will be found in the ekquer.t 
introduction, wherein the argument in favor of classic studies in our own ase and 
country, is presented with great force, and with a purity of style that is of itself 
an illustration of their benefits."— Ba*/ State Democrat. 

"This volume is no common-place production. It is truly refreshing, when we 
are obliged from week to week to look through the mass of books which increas^es 
upon our table, many of which are extremely attenuated in thought and jejune in 
Btyle, to find somethiUL' which carries us back to the pure and invigt)raiin2 in- 
fluence of the master minds of antiquity. The gentlemen who have produced 'this 
volume deserve the cordial thanks of the literary world." — New E7ig. Puritan. 

" A rare and beautiful book is this. Such names as those of Sears, Edwards and 
Felton, on the title-page of any book, would be regarded as prima facie evidence of 
its merits; but those who notice 'Classical Studies,' will not deem the announce- 
ment of the authors' names sufficient praise. The first thing that strikes you, 
after its very neat binding, is its typographical execution. It is an honor lo the 
American press. This book will do good in our colleges. Every sludeni will want 
a copy, and many will be stimulated by its perusal to a more vigorous and enthu- 
siastic pursuit of that higher and more solid learnmg. which alone deserves lo be 
called 'classical.' The recent tendencies have been to the neglect of this, and we 

rejoice in this timely effort of minds so well qualified for such a work." Rejlector. 

"The object of the accomplished gentlemen who have engaged in iis preparation 
has been, to foster and extend among educated men, in this country, the already 
growing interest in classical studies. The design is a noble and generous one, and 
has been executed with a ta.ste and good sensed that do honor both to the writers 
and the publishers. The book is one which deserven a place in the library of every 
educated man. To those now engaged in classical study it cannot fail lo be highly 
useful, while to the more advanced scholar it will open new sources of interest^and 
delight in the unforgotten pursuits of his earlier Adiys."— Providence Journal. 

"The work has been prepared by three gentlemen connected with as many dif- 
ferent institutions, who seem to have entered upon and executed their labor con 
amore. It is a beautiful example of the attractive force of elesant and Mseh\\ lit- 
erature, overcoming the repelling elements of what are presumed to be different 
creeds. And the product is worthy of the sacrifice, if there have been one It is 
an elegant and valuable tribute to the value of cla.ssical learning. An introductory 
essay leares a deep and delightful impression of the worth and use of classical 
aiMAies."— Christian Mirror, Portland. 

6 



GESENIUS' HEBEEW GEAMMAE; 

Translated from the Eleventh German Edition. By T. J. Conant, Prof, of Hebrew 

and of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation in the Theol. Institution at 

Hamilton, N. Y. With a Course of Kxercises in Hebrew Grammar, 

and a Hebrew Chrestomathy , prepared by the Translator. 

Third Edition. 

"The workof Gesenius requires no eulogy from us: nor is this the place to enter 
into a detailed examination of his theoretical views or practical exposition of the 
structure of the language; but we concur with the translator in considering that, 
as a philosophical arrangement and explanation of its grammatical phenomena, it 
has no equal; and that it is particularly distinguished by a chaste simplicity, and 
attractive clearness of method,— qualities which not only imply a correct taste and 
logical understanding, but evince, also, a thorough mastery of the subject. Prof. 
Cuiiant has rendered a substantial service to the cause of biblical learning, and done 
honor to the important denomination of which he is a member. Besides executing 
with excellent fidelity -and good judgment his translation of the Grammar of the 
great Hebraist of the age, he has some useful additions of his own, and has, in nu- 
merous instances, corrected mistakes of a too common class, which, if they give 
liule trouble to some readers, are the worst annoyance to others, — that of errors in 
reference. He has also made additions of a very judicious as well as moral charac- 
ter, in a series ofgrammatical Exercises. The typographical execution is in the 
best style of the Cambridge university printers. The letter-press is beautiful, and 
all b It immaculate." — North American Review. 

"Professor Conant has executed his task with great ability. He does not appear 
merely in tlie character of a iranslator: the Chrestomathy and Exercises prepared 
by him form a very valuable addition to the work. The latter, especially, are pre- 
pared with great skill and ability, in such a way as to lead the student forward, step 
by step, malting him thoroughly familiar with each point as he advances. One 
other point of extreme importance in such a work, we must not fail to notice, — the 
corectness ol the printing. This is truly wonderful. And when we add that the 
typography,— at least the English part of it, — is as beautiful as it is correct, we 
have s;iid as much as is necessary to recommend the book to all students of the 
Hebrew."— JSos^ow Recorder. 



FOUE GOSPELS, WITH NOTES, 

Chiefly Explanatory; intended principally for Sabbath School Teachers and Bible 
Classes, and as an Aid to Family Instruction. By Henry J. Ripley, 
Professor of Biblical Literature and Interpretation in 
the Newton Theological Institution. 
Seventh Edition. 
^r3= This work should be in the hands of every student of the Bible; especially 
every Sabbath school and Bible class teacher. It is prepared with special reference 
to this class of persons, and contains a mass of just the kind of information wanted. 
"The undersigned, having examined Professor Ripley's Notes on the Gospels, 
can recommend them with confidence to all who need such helps in the study of 
the sacred Scriptures. Those passages which all can understand are left " without 
note or comment," and the principal labor is devoted to the explanation of such 
parts as need to be explained and rescued from the perversions of errorists, both 
the isnorant and the learned. The practical suggestions at the close of each chap- 
ter, are not the least valuable portion of the work. Most cordially.for the sake of 
truth and righteousness, do we wish for these Notes a wide circulatian. 

Baron Stow, R. H. Neale, 

Daniel Sharp, J. W. Parker, 

William Hague, R. Turnbull, 

R. W. CUSHMAN, N. COLVER." 

"Professor Ripley has given us a specimen of the risht kind of Commentary; 
the Notes are more strictly explanatory than those of Mr. Barnes; they occupy a 
smaller space ; the style, though less pointed and vivacious, exhibits more sobriety ; 
the principles of interpretation are more cautiously applied; and the explanations, 
particularly on ths subject of baptism, are more correct." — Christian Review, 
T 



Il)0rk0 on I3aptt0m. 

THE BAPTISMAL QUESTION; 

Containing Messrs. Cooke and Towne's "Hints to an Enquirer on tlie subject of 

Baptism," — a Review of the "Hints," by Rev. William Hague, 

with a "Rejoinder," by Cooke and Towne, and 

Mr. Hague's Examination of the Rejoinder. 

BAPTISM ITS OWN WITNESS; 

Or, Reflections suggested by reading "The Baptized Child." By Wm. Hague, 
Pastor of Federal Street Baptist Church, Boston. 

JEWETT ON BAPTISM. 

The Mode and Subjects of Baptism. By BIilo P. Jewett, A. M., late professor 

in Marietta College, and a licensed minister of the Presbyterian church. 

Sixth Thousand. 

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

An Examination of Stuart's Essay on Baptism. By Henry J. Ripley, 
Professor in Newton Theological Institution. 

FULLER'S DIALOGUES ON COMMUNION. 

Being a candid and able Discussion of Strict and Mixed Communion; 

to which is added, Dr. Griffin's Letter on the subject, 

and a Review of the same, by Prof. Ripley. 

Second Edition. 

Those Christians who have read the writings of the celebrated Mr. Hall on this 
subject, ought to do themselves the justice to peruse these conversations by one of 
his *hurch, the son of the late Andrew Fuller. The work is written in a manly 
style, and did not interrupt the affection which existed between Mr Hall and Mr. 
Fuller. This relation between the two writers gives much interest to the publica- 
tion. One important trait in the Dialogue is, that Mr, Fuller meets Mr. Hall ar- 
rayed in his own language. As a controversial work it has few rivals, in regard 
either to Christian spirit, or argumentative powers. The public are under obliga- 
tions to the editor, Rev. Peter Chase, for his notes, references, (fee, which enhance 
the value of tlie American edition. Professor Ripley's able Review of Dr. GrifTin's 
letter, adds intrinsic worth to the book, which will ever remain a standard volume 
on this important subject. 

LIFE OF PHILIP MELANCTHON. 

COMPRISING AN ACCOUNT OF THE REFORMATION. 
By F. A. Cox, D. D. 

"This is a neat edition of a work, which has obtained in England a permanent 
reputation. The acquaintance, which many in this country have formed with its 
auihor, will induce them to read the book with increased interest. It is well writ- 
ten, in a style, which, though flowing and ornate, is not turgid. It shows all the 
learning which is appropriate to the subject, without an offensive display. The 
facts concerning Melancthon are detailed with clearness, and a lucid view is present- 
ed of the principal personages and events of the age. From no other book, within 
the same compass, could a better knowledge of the rise and progress of the Reform- 
ation be obtained For this reason, as well as for the attractions which belong to 
the character of Melancthon, the book is valuable."— CAns^mn Review. 



MY PROGRESS IN ERROR, 

AND RECOVERY TO TRUTH. 

Or a Tour through Universalism, Unitarianism, and Skepticism. 
Extract of a letter from Prof. Stuart, Andover. 
"Gentlemen: — I have received a copy of ' My Progress in Error,' and read it 
with atteulion and much interest. I lake the liberty to say, that in my judgment, 
the author of that book has written a plain and unvarnished account of tlie opera- 
tions not only of his own mind, but of many others. The author has gone through 
the whole, without personal abuse of any body, and without any slanderous 
insinuations. It seems to me, that what he has said about the operations of Uni- 
tarian sentiments, he has been compelled to say by a regard to truth. In fact, I 
regard the book as a remarkable example of prudent forbearance, as to stigmatiz- 
ing either opponents or their sentiments. I predict it will be found fault with, 
and violently attacked. But in my humble opiniim, the reason of this will be, 
that the author has drawn a true likeness of so many ; and when this is held up to 
public view, it is not a very pleasing portrait. Who likes to be seen in a forbid- 
ding picture 1 The book will be read, notwithstanding newspaper criticism ; and 
if I do not miscalculale greatly, it will aid much in opening the eyes of the public, 
as the workings and evasions of a skeptical spirit. Bid the author of it God spe^d. 
" With kmd regards, your friend and obedient servant, M. Stuart.'' 

Opinions of the Press. 

•'In many of the passages we almost fancied that the writer ha.' been sketching 
a history of our own ' progress in error,' so true is the history, and so similar the 
feelings of those who are led away in the morning of life, into the dark and dreary 
path of religious error. We should be glad to have this book placed in the hands 
of every young man whose mind is unsettled upon the question of experimental 
religion, and especially of those who are trying to believe the doctrine of Univer- 
salism."— CA. Secretary. 

"■ It is written in a bold and comprehensive style. We doubt not it will find 
numerous readers in the community, and may serve as a chart to guide others in 
the progress of life."— ^mencaTi Traxeller. 

" We should be glad if a copy of the book could be put into the hands of every 
one who is disposed to cavil at the truth, and embrace error." — Phil. Bap. Rec. 

"The author is candid in his manner, and forcible in his reasonings, and at last 
informs us of his being brought to a knowledge of the truth."— iNT. H. Register. 

" The anonymous author of this book informs us that this is not a hasty pro- 
duction, more than ten years havin? elapsed since the last leading event which it 
records transpired ; without his declaration, we might have thought it written as 
an oflFset to Mr. Brownson's Charles EUwood. It is in fact a religious novel, and 
as such, is rather interesting. It was to us, for we read it through at one sit- 
ting." — Boston Courier. 

'• It cannot be doubted that it is admirably adapted to a wide-spread circulation, 
and salutary influence. Great good will result from the distribution of this 
work."— jBos/ow Recorder. 



ONESIMUS 



Or, the Apostolic Direction to Christian Masters, in reference to theik 
Slaves. By Evangelicus. 

"We are glad to see this subject presented to the consideration of Christians, 
by itself, and without any reference to other questions that agitate the public 
mind ; and we are glad that the writer has confined himself, in the argument, so 
closely to the law of love. The Essay is written with care, and in a kind and 
dispassionate spirit; and although it cannot be expected to unite the minds of all 
parties, either here or at the South, it is well calculated to promote, wherever it 
is read, the author's object, as indicated in the conclusion of his 'Introductory 
Observations.' " — Vermont Chronicle. 

"It is written in an excellent spirit, with close logic, and severe perspicuity, 
and is evidently from a practised pen." — Zion's Herald. 

" Its whole spirit and tendency are the opposite of the anti-slavery publicationa, 
which have produced so much evil."— Princeton Review. 



0abbati) Bc\}ooi B0OIC0. 

LINCOLN'S SABBATH SCHOOL CLASS BOOK. 

Comprising copious Exercises on the Sacred Scriptures. By E. Lincoln. 
Revised and improved by an eminent Clergyman and a Superintendent. 

D3=The present edition has been thoroughly revised and enlarged by gentlemen 
well qualified for the task. The book, in its present shape, is one of the cheapest 
and most complete of the kind now in use. 

"Having examined your Sabbath School Class Book, it gives us pleasure to 
express our satisfaction with its design and execution. The great benefit which a 
good class book accomplishes, consists in guiding the mind of the scholar in the 
study of his lesson, and in suggesting topics of conversation to the teacher. To 
this end we think your work is well adapted, having avoided, in a great degree, 
the evils of extreme redundance or conciseness. 

W. Hague, H. Malcom 

L. BoLLEs, Baron Stow. 

E. Thresher, 

MALCOM'S BIBLE DICTIONARY. 

A Dictionary of the most important Names, Objects, and Terms, found in the Holy 
Scriptures; intended principally for Sunday School Teachers and Bible 
Classes. By Howard Malcom, A. M. Illustrated by thirty- 
nine Engravings on Wood, and a Map of Palestine. 
From the Minutes of the Ver^nont State Convention. 
"Your Committee earnestly recommend Malcom's Bible Dictionary, the worth 
of which every lover of the Bible will feel, and the low price of which places it 
within the reach of all." 

From the Minutes of the Boston Association. 
"Believing that the advantages of Sabbath School and Bible Class instruction 
depend greatly on the intelligence of their t-^achers, and that the extended circu- 
lation of Malcom's Bible Dictionary would conduce to their better qualification, 
Resolved, That this work be recommended to the patronage of the friends of early 
religious instruction." 

LINCOLN'S SCRIPTURE QUESTIONS. 

With the Answer annexed, giving, in the language of the Sacred Volume, 

interesting portions of the History, and a concise View or the 

Doctrines and Duties exhibited in the Bible. 

Where Bibles cannot be furnished to each scholar, the Scripture Questions may 
be used with convenience, as the answers are printed. 

HAGUE'S GUIDE TO CONVERSATION 

ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Designed for the Use of Bible Classes and Sabbath Schools. By Rev. Wm- Hague. 
Vol. I, Matthew,— Vol. H, John. 

The object of this work is tico fold :—\st. To facilitate the efforts of the teach- 
ers in communicating instruction to their classes: — 2d. To excite a spirit of 
inquiry amongst the classes themselves. To this end, such questions are asked 
as are adapted to lead the mind to think, and only such as the scholar, with the 
Bible in his hand, may be expected to answer, by the aid of his own reflecting 
powers. The questions are interspersed with familiar remarks, which are designed 
to convey to the scholar such information as* may not be within his reach^ and 
also to keep up a continuous conversation between the teacher and the class. 
10 



THE SAINT'S EVERLASTING REST. 

By Rev. Richard Baxter. 

From Rev. Dr. Wayland, President ofBroivn University. 

"I am gratified to perceis^e that you have published a handsome edition of Baxter's 

Saint's Rest. Of the value of the work itself, it is superfluous to speak. It has 

few equals in any language The ordinary copies are palpably beneath the value 

of the work." 

THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. 

In Three Books. By Thomas a Kempis. With an Introductory Essay, 

by Thomas Chalmers, of Glasgow. A new edition, 

edited by Rev. Hovs^ard BIalcom. 

This work has, for three hundred years, been esteemed one of the best practical 
books in existence, and has gone through a vast number of editions, not only in 
the original Latin, but in every language of Europe. Dr. Payson, of Portland, 
warmly recommended it, in a letter to a ynung clevgyman. That the benefit of 
the work may be universally enjoyed, the translation of Payne, which best agrees 
with the original, has been revised by Rev. Howard Malcom, and such retrench- 
ments made,^as adapt it to general use. 

JAMES'S CHURCH-MEMBER'S GUIDE. 

Edited by J. O. Choules. With an Introductory Essay, by Rev. H. Winslow. 

"The spontaneous effusion of our heart, on laying the book down, was,— may 
every church-member in our land soon possess this book, and be blessed with all 
the happiness which conformity to its evangelic sentiments and directions is cal- 
culated to confer."— CArzsfmre Secretary. 

THE BEAUTIES OF COLLYER. 

Selections from the Theological Lectures of Rev. W. B. Collyer, D. D, 

The merits of Dr. Collyer are thus noticed by an eminent reviewer. "His re- 
searches, his various learning, and accumulation of interesting facts, his present- 
ing old and familiar truths in a new and striking manner, entitle him to rank high 
as a theological writer. His style is remarkably elegant and polished, and there is 
a rich vein of evangelical piety running through all his works." In making up 
the volume from so eminent an author, the editor has selected those parts which 
he supposed would create habits of thought in the Christian c»-mmunity, and pre- 
sent a volume well suited for the Christian library. Indeed, this book contains a 
rich treasure of truth up in seventy subjects, for all classes of readers. It is well 
calculated to give youth a taste for reading, as it is to encourage the mature Chris- 
tian in his course of duly, and to confirm his hopes of a happy immortality. 

SCRIPTURE NATURAL HISTORY. 

Containing a descriptive account of Quadrupeds, Birds, Fishes, Insects, Reptiles, 

Serpents, Plants, Trees, Minerals, Gems, and Precious Stones, mentioned 

in the Bible. By Wm. Carpenter, London ; with improvements, 

By GoRHAM D. Abbott. Illustrated by numerous 

engravings, also. Sketches of Palestine. 

"This is a very interesting volume to general readers of the Bible. Mr, Abbott 
has divested the work of its learned references, and adapted it to the comprehension 
of all. Mr. Carpenter compiled the work from the Natural History of the Rev. Dr. 
Harris, of Dorchester, Mass., and very ungenerously refused to acknowledge his 
obligations to the author, while he abused him for his want of orthodoxy. Mr. 
Abbott has faithfully exposed the piracy. We recommend the volume as one of 
great value." — Avierican (Quarterly Register. 

TRAVELS OF TRUE GODLINESS. 

By Rev. B. Keach. A Memoir of his^Life, by Howard Malcom, A. M. 
11 



CHRISTIAN MINIATURE LIBRARY. 

Elegantly bound in Clothy Gilt Edges. 
THE BIBLE AND THE CLOSET; 

Or, how we may read the Scriptures with the most spiritual profit. 

By Thomas Watson; and Secret Prayer successfully managed. 

By Rev. Samuel Lee; ministers ejected in 1662. 

Edited by Rev J. O. Choules. With 

a Recommendatory Letter. 

By Rev. E. N. Kirk. 

THE CASKET OF FOUR JEWELS, 

For Young Christians. Containing A polios— Growth in Grace— The 
Golden Censer — and The Christian Citizen. 

THE MARRIAGE RING; 

Or, how to make Home Happy. By Rev. John Angell James. 

" Of all the books of this description, this is one of the best we have seen. Full 
of practical aad interesting matter relatinf to the mutual duty of those who are, 
or intend to be, connected in the marriage state, it caanot fall to be productive of 
good. It is neat and tastefully got up, and will be a most acceptable present." — 
Bangor Gazette. 

"It is a good little book, containing excellent advice on the subject of the do- 
mestic relations." — U. S. Gazette, Philadelphia. 
"A beautiful little work, after the neatest fashion of miniature books. "-(Sa/emGoz. 



A NEW GUIDE FOR EMIGRANTS TO THE WEST. 

By John M. Peck, of Illinois. 

"We earnestly wish this most excellent work was in the hands of those hun- 
dreds of Emigrants, who are now about town, and intend to go "West." The 
advice and information contained in these 374 pages, are really invaluable, and if 
attended to, would save an immense amount of time, trouble, and last, not least, 
money. The author may be depended upon; having had every opportunity lor 
gathering facts and knowledge on the subject." 

ESSAY ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 

By D. Van de Wynpersse, D. D. 

CAMPBELL & FENELON ON ELOQUENCE. 

Campbell's Lectures on Theology and Pulpit Eloquence, 

and Fenelon's Dialogues on Eloquence. 

Edited by Prof. H. Ripley. 

JrJ^'It has been the aim of the editor of this work to make it more fitted to 
students in this country, and more profitable to those whose studies have not ex- 
tended beyond their own language. And he considers that these Lectures inculcate 
the true mode in which the study of theology should be conducted. The excellence 
of Fenelon's Dialogues concernmg Eloquence, their general agreement with the 
sentiments of Dr. Campbell's Lectures, and their more ample discussion of certain 
topics connected with preaching, render their insertion in this volume quite ap- 
propriate. These dialogues Dr. Doddridge has called ' incomparable dialogues on 
eloquence," which, he remarks, "may God put it into the hearts of our preachers 
often and attentively to read " This complete volume on eloquence has been 
noticed by several periodicals, and recommended to all students who are preparing 
for the Christian ministry. 

12 



Probably no writer of modern times has so much ensaged the public mind as 
Dr. Harris. All his works hare beea favorably received, extensively reviewed, 
and both the style and spirit highly commended. 

THE GREAT COMMISSION; 

The Christian Church constituted and charged to convey the Gospel to the World. 

With an Introductory Essay, by Rev. William R. Williams, D. D. 

Fourth Thousand. 

THE GREAT TEACHER; 

Or, Characteristics of our Lord's Ministry. With an introductory Essay, 

by Heman Humphrey, D. D. 

Ninth Thousand. 

MAMMON; 

Or, Covetousness the Sin of the Christian Church. A Prize Essay. 
Seventh Thousand. 

UNION; 

Or, the Divided Church made One. Second Thousand. 

ZEBULON; 

Or, the Condition and Claims of Sailors. The Prize Essay, written for the 

British and Foreign Sailors' Society. American Edition, 

edited by Rev. Wm. M. Rogers and D. M. Lord. 

Third Thousand, 

THE WITNESSING CHURCH; 

32mo, cloth. 

THE CHRISTIAN CITIZEN ; 

Paper, gilt etlges, 

THE GOLDEN CENSER; 

Or, a Visit to the House of Prayer. 
Paper, gilt edges. 

lEMOm OF ROGER WILLIAMS, 

The Founder of the State of Rhode Island. By Rev. James D. Knowles. 

"In perusing Prof Knowles's Memoir of Roger Williams, the reader will find 
much of this beauty of history to which we have alluded, as combined with biog- 
raphy. There were many noble traits of character in Mr. Williams, which ren- 
dered him the object of deserved admiration ; such as his eminent piety, his acts 
of humanity and justice towards the Lidians, his unbending integrity in principle, 
&c.— but as that for which he is most peculiarly the object of our admiration, we 
select his unshaken attachment to, and persevering vindication of entire liberty of 
conscience in relisious worship. Mr. Williams was decided on this subject. 
The Holy Scriptures were the standard of his belief, and the authority which he 
recognized for the resulation of his conscience. The task of writing a memoir of 
Roger Williams was ~by no means inconsiderable. Prof Knowles, from a correct 
apprehension of the principles of religious liberty, was peculiarly the man to enter 
on this labor. We are pleased that he has completed it in an able manner, and 
given as full and correct a delineation of this grpat man as could probably have 
been given by any other author in Europe or America. The volume is a rich 
acquisition to the history of our country, ranking high in the catalogue of our best 
works in American mersLtarG."—Christian^Watchman. 
1 13 



THE SABBATH SCHOOL HARMONY; 

Containing appropriate Hymns and Music for Sabbatli Scliools, Juvenile 
Singing Schools, and Family Devotion. By N. D. Gotjld. 

From the Sabbath School Treasury. 
"The work before us is got up in a very convenient and attractive form. It 
contains about fifty tunes, and seventy-five hymns. The music is most of it 
original, and of that style and character, which long experience in teaching, has 
satisfied the author is best calculated to interest not only children, but persons of 
maturer age, when learning to sing. The hymns appear to be selected with pecu- 
liar taste and care, and, for SabbaUi School purposes, of such variety, as to require 
no other hymn book. We especially commend this little work to the notice of 
Sabbath School teachers, believing it to be the best work for Sabbath Schools now 
before the public.'' 

THE SACRED MINSTREL; 

A Collection of Church Music, consisting of Psalm and Hymn Tunes, Anthems, 

Sentences, Chants, &c., selected from the most popular productions of 

nearly one hundred different authors in this and other countries. 

By. N. D. Gould. 

NATIONAL CHURCH HARMONY, 

Containing Tunes calculated for Public Worship, Anthems and Select Pieces for 

Fasts, Thanksgivings, Christmas, Missionary Meetings, &c. 

By N. D. Gould. New stereotype edition. 

WINCHELL'S WATTS, 

Enlarged, being an arrangement of all the Psalms and Hymns of Dr. Watts. 
With a Supplement. 

HYMNS FOR THE VESTRY AND FIRESIDE. 

A choice Collection of about four hundred hymns, original and selected. 



FEMALE SCRIPTURE BIOGRAPHY. 

With an Essay on what Christianity has done for Women. By Rev. F. Cox. 

HELP TO ZION'S TRAVELLERS. 

By Rev. Robert Hall, with a Preface, by Dr. Ryland. 
Edited by Rev. J. A. Warne. 

THE THEATRE. 

In its Influence upon Literature, Morals, and Religion. By Rev. R. Turneull, 
Second Edition. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN UNION. 

By William Hague. 

THE CHRISTIAN REVIEW. 

Quarterly. Edited by Rev. S. F. Smith. 

&3=" A few of the back volumes can be had if applied for soon. 

14 



MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE. 

It has been icell said, that "to imbue men thoroughly loith the missionary 
spirit, we must acquaint them intimately with the missionary enterprise." The 
spirit of missions seems every where to be increasing. The circulation of printed 
documents, and other like efforts, are giving a new impetus to the cause. 

The following valuable works contain just the kind of information needed. 
Let every one purchase and read them. 



ORIGm AND HISTOUY OE MISSIONS; 

A Record of the Voyages, Travels, Labors, and Successes of the various Missionariea 

who have been sent forth by Protestant Societies to evangelize the Heathen. 

Compiled from authentic Documents. 

FORMING A COMPLETE MISSIONARY REPOSITORY. 

Illustrated by numerous Engravings, made expressly for this work. 
By Rev. John O. Choules, A. M., and Rev. Thomas Smith. 
Sixth Edition,. Enlarged and Improved. 
RECOMMENDATIONS. 
From the Secretary of the Am. B. C. F. Missions. 
tC^Tt is the most comprehensive, and tlie best extant. It contains a rich store 
of authentic facts, highly important both to the minister and the private Christian, 
To the former, it will be an invaluable assistant in his preparations for the monthly 
concert and other missionary meetings; and in the family, it will furnish instruc- 
tive and useful employment to the members, of different ages, in many an hour 
that otherwise might not be so profitably occupied. R. Anderson. 

From the Secretaries of the Am. Bap. Board of Foreign Missions. 
The History of Missions, as its name denotes, is a narrative of the means and 
methods by which the gospel has been propagated in pagan lands, beginning with 
the earliest efforts of tlie church, but presenting more at large the origin and 
progress of the principal missionary insiitutions of the last and present centuries. 
Being derived from authentic sources, and fitted, by its happy selection of inci- 
dents, to cherish an intelligent interest in the subjects of which it treats, we hope 
it will secure an extensive circulation. It is worthy of a place in every Christian 
library. Lucius Boli.es, 

Solomon Peck. 

THE GREAT COMMISSION. 

Or the Christian Church constituted and charged to convey the gospel to the world. 

By Rev. John Harris, D. D., author of 'Mammon,' 'Great Teacher, '&c. 

With an Introductory Essay, by William R. Williams, D. D., 

of New York. Second Edition. i2mo. Cloth. 

9::5=This work was written in consequence of the offer of a prize of two hundred 
guineas, by several prominent individuals in Scotland, for the best essay on 
''The duty, privilege, and encouragement of Christians to send the gospel of 
salvation to the unenlightened nations of the earth." The adjudicators (David 
Welsh, Ralph Wardlaw^ Henry Melville, Jabez Bunting, Thomas S. Crisp) state 
" that forty-two essays icere received, and, after much deliberation, the essay of 
Dr. Harris was placed J?rsf. They were influenced 'n their decision'by the senti- 
ment, style, and comprehensiveness of the essay, ana by me general adaptation 
to the avowed object of the prize." 

This work has received the highest commendation, 
2 15 



KAREN APOSTLE; 

Or, Memoir of Ko Thah-Byu, the first Karen convert, with notices concerning his 

Nation. With maps and plates. By Rev. Francis Mason, Missionary. 

American edition. Edited by Professor Henry J. Ripley, 

of Newton Theological Institution. 

tl3=This is a work of thrilling interest, containing the history of a remarkable , 
man, and giving, also, much information respecting the Karen Mission, heretofore 
unknown in this country. It must be sought for, and read with avidity by those 
interested in this most interesting Mission. 

It gives an account, which must be attractive from its novelty, of a people that 
have been but little known and visited by missionaries, till within a few years. 
The baptism of KoThah Byu in 1828, was the beginning of the mission, and at 
the end of these twelve years, 1270 Karens are officially reported as members of 
the churches, in good standing. The mission has been carried on pre-eminently 
by the Karens themselves, and there is no doubt, from much touching evidence 
contained in this volume, that they area people peculiarly susceptible to religious 
impressions. The account of Mr. Mason must be interesting to every one. 

" Perhaps no nation, recently discovered, has attracted or deserved more general 
interest than the Karen. All will be delighted to read the memoir of one, wlio 
united witli the common characteristics of his countrymen, such an extraordinary 
degree of zeal, of perseverance, and success, in the propagation of tlie gospel 
which he himself first received in faith and in love." — Baptist Advocate. 

"It is a valuable addition to the volumes now multiplying, which bear testimony 
to the valuable character and results of the missionary work." — Ch. Intelligencer. 

"This work will be read with interest, showing, as it does, the power of the 
gospel upon a degraded people, and the rich blessings it confers upon the heathen, 
both as it respects this life and the life to come. What can be more interesting 
to a Christian mind, than to see the darkness which, by nature, breeds over the 
human mind, dispelled by the light of the gospel, and a benighted spirit guided to 
a world of eternal day. A striking instance of this, the memoir presents. It also 
shows how the gospel can raise up an individual from the depths of wretchedness 
and crime, and make him, though possessed of small natural abilities, a rich 
blessing to his fellow-men." — Vermont Chronicle. 

" It is an interesting little volume, and gives a vivid picture of the influence of 
the Christian religion in taming, subduing, and elevating a rough and darkened 
mind. The historical notices of the Karen people we have read with pleasure." — 
Bangor Courier. 

"This volume abounds in that kind of interest which belongs to personal narra- 
tive ; and the effect of good teaching upon ' new minds.' is admirably illustrated." 
—Phil. U. S. Gaz. 

MEMOIR OF 

ANN H. JUDSON, 

Late Missionary to Burmah, including a history of the American Baptist Mission 

in the Burman Empire. By Rev. James D. Knowles. A new edition. 

V/.tn a continuation of the History down to the present year. 

ti3="" We are particularly gratified to perceive a new edition of the Memoirs of 
Mrs. Judson. She was an honor to our country— one of the most noble spirited 
of her sex. It cannot, therefore, be surprising, that so many editions, and so 
many thousand copies of her life and adventures have been sold. The name — the 
long career of suffering — the self-sacrificing spirit of the retired country girl, 
have spieaaijvsr the whole world; and the heroism of her apostle.ship and almost 
martyrdom, stands out a living and heavenly beacon fire, amid the dark midnisht 
of ages, ami human history and exploits. She was the first woman who resolved 
to become a missionary to heathen countries." 
16 



MEMOIR OF 

GEORGE DANA BOARDMAN, 

Late Missionary to Burmah, containing much intelligence relative to the Burman 

Mission. By Rev. Alonzo King. New edition. With an Introductory Essay, 

by a distinguished Clergyman. Embellished with a Likeness ; a 

beautiful Vignette, on Steel, representing the baptismal 

scene just before his death; and a drawing of hia 

Tomb, taken by Rev. Howard Malcom. 

Jl3=In noticing the lamented death of Mr. Boardman, Mr. Judson, in one of his 
letters, thus speaks of his late worthy co-worker on the fields of Burmah: 

"One of the brightest luminaries of Burmah is extinguished, — dear brother 
Boardman is gone to his eternal rest. He fell gloriously at the head of his troops, 
in the arms of victory, — thirty-eight wild Karens having been brought into the 
camp of king Jesus since the beginning of the year, besides the thirty-two that 
were brought in during the two preceding years. Disabled by wounds, he was 
obliged, through the whole last expedition, to be carried on a litter; but his 
presence was a host, and the Holy Spirit accompanied his dying whispers with 
almighty influence. Such a death, next to that of martyrdom, must be glorious 
in the eyes of heaven. Well may he rest, assured, that a triumphal crown awaits 
him on the great day, and ' Well done, good anu faithful Boardman, enter thou 
into the joy of thy Lord." 

From Rev. Baron Stow. 

No one can read the Memoir of Boardman, without feeling that the religion of 
Christ is suited to purify the affections exalt the purposes, and give energy to the 
character. Mr. Boardman was a man of rare excellence, and his biographer, by a 
just exhibition of that excellence, has rendered an important service, not only to 
the cause of Christian missions, but to the interest of personal godliness. 

Baron Stow. 

MALCOM^S TEAYELS 

IN SOUTH-EASTERN ASIA. 

embracing Hi ndustan, Malaya, Siam, and China ; with notices of numerous 

missionary stations; and a full account of the Burman Empire; 

with Dissertations, Tables, &c. In two volumes, 

beautifully illustrated. Sixth edition. 

By Howard Malcom. 

MEMOIR OF 

WILLIAM CAREY, D. D. 

FORTY YEARS MISSIONARY IN INDIA. 

By Eustace Carey, With an Introductory Essay, by Francis Wayland, D D. 

With a Likeness. 

During the forty years which Dr. Carey labored in the missionary cause, he was 
instrumental in the publication of 212,000 volumes of the Scriptures in forty 
different languages, embracing the vernacular tongues of at least 27,000, OOU ?<'the 
human race, besides performing other labors, the enumeration of which woulu 
seem almost incredible. 

17 



THE PSALMIST, 

A New Collection of Hymns, for the use of the Baptist Denomination. 
By Baron Stow and S. F. Smith. 

This work contains about ticelxe huvdred Hymns, original and selected ; with 
words for select music, and a few pages of chants at the end. 

All of Watts's Hymns, possessing lyrical spirit, and suited to the worship of a 
Christian assembly, are inserted; andal^rge number of hymns heretofore unknown 
in this country have been introduced. Tiie distinction of psalms and hymns, usu- 
ally made in other collections, has been avoided in this, and all have been arranged 
together, under their appropriate heads, and numbered in regular, unbroken suc- 
cession. 

The Chants, and Selections for Chanting,— since the practice of chanting 
is becoming so general,— must be found a very convenient and valuable appendage 
to the work. 

The acknowledged ability of the editors for the task; the length of time occupied 
in making the compilation; the uncommon facilities enjoyed, of drawing from the 
best sources in this and other countries; the now, convenient, and systematic plan 
of arrangement adopted; ths quality and style of getting up, Ice. &c. give the 
publishers confidence in the belief, that it is a work of far superior merit to any 
collection now before the public. 

The price, for the I8mo size, strongly bound in sheep, is 75 cents, and the pocket 
edition 62| cents. A liberal discount will be made, where a number of copies are 
purchased at one time. 

Copies furnished gratis to those wishing to examine the work with a view to its 
introduction. 



ANTIOCH: 



Or, Increase of Moral Power in the Church of Christ. By Rev. Pharcellus 
Church. With an Introductory Essay, by Rev. Baron Stow. 

n!!?""Here is a volume which will make a greater stir than any didactic work 
that has been issued for many a day. It is a book of close and consecutive thought, 
and treats of subjects which are of the deepest interest, at the present time, to the 
churches of this country. 

"The author is favorably known to the relieious public, as an original thinker, 
and a forcible writer,— his style is lucid and vigorous. The Introduction, by Mr. 
Stow, adds much to the value and attractions of the volume." — Clir. Rejlector. 

" By some this book will be condemned, by many it will be read with pleasure, 
because it analyzes and renders tangit)le, principles that have been vaguely con- 
ceived in many minds, reluctantly promulgated and hesitatingly believed. We 
advise our brethren to read the book, and judge for themselves."— .Ba/). Record. 

" It is the work of an original thinker, on a subject of great practical interest to 
the church. It is replete with suegestions, which, in our view, are eminently 
worthy of consideration." — Philaddphia Christian Observer. 

"This is a philosophical essay, denotmg depth of thinking, and great originality, 
* * * * He does not doubt, but asserts, and carries along the matter with his 
argument, until the difference of opinion with which the reader started with the 
writer is forgotten by the former, in admiration of the warmth and truthfulness of 
the latter. "—P/«7. U. S. Gazette. 

PENTECOST. 

OR THE SOLE EFFICIENCY OF CONVERTING THE WORLD. 

By Rev. Pharcellus Church, author of " Antioch." 

Contents — Ev^angelical Enterprise — Scale on which to graduate Man's Efficiency 

in it. Part 1. Nature of the Energy which the Believer is to expect from Chri.^l. 

Part 2. The Forms under which this Heavenly Energy manifests itself. Part 3. 

Means ef securing enlarged Measures of this Energy upon ourselves. 

"One desire in the writer predominates over all others; that Christians, gener- 
ally, may rise to a just appreciation of the unspeakable blessings treasured up for 
them in Christ; that all men may see the riches of the glory of his inheritance in 
the saints." 

18 



> ^ / • / 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



J 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 479 981 1 



